THE
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. III.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TO
THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1820.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY T. C. HANSARD, PETERBOROUGH-COURT, FLEET-STREET;
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN; J. M. RICHARDSON; BLACK, KINGSBURY, PARBURY, AND ALLEN; J. HATCHARD & SON; J. RIDGWAY & SONS; E. JEFFERY & SON; RODWELL & MARTIN; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1821.
ADVERTISEMENT.
IN the present Volume of the Parliamentary Debates, the important Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties against Her Majesty the Queen, are brought to a termination. The Editor feels it almost unnecessary to assure the Subscribers and the Public, that no pains have been spared to give those Proceedings with the greatest accuracy. The Debates which took place in the several stages of the Bill will be found detailed at great length. The eloquent Speeches of the Counsel who appeared for and against the Bill have been carefully revised and corrected, and compared with the Notes of the eminent Short-hand Writer to the two Houses, obligingly communicated by the Agents on both sides for that purpose. And the Examinations in chief, the Cross-examinations, the Re-examinations, the Examinations by the Lords, together with the Questions propounded to the learned Judges and their Answers, the sundry Reports, Protests, &c. &c. have all been faithfully transcribed from the Minutes and Journals of the House of Lords. The Editor, therefore, is induced to hope, that he has not been unsuccessful in his endeavours to present the public with the only complete Report of a Proceeding which, in interest and in magnitude, yields to no proceeding that ever occupied the attention of Parliament and of the Nation.
5, PANTON SQUARE,
June
th
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
IV. PROTESTS.
V. REPORTS.
VI. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1820. Sept. 8. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY
1
DEFENCE.
Motion by the Earl of Liverpool, "That if the Counsel for her Majesty think proper now to proceed to state the Case of her Majesty, and mean to produce Evidence, they must proceed at the close of the statement of the Case to produce the whole Evidence intended to be adduced"
24
1820. Sept. 9. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
41
The House adjourns to the 3rd day of October
50
1820. Oct. 3. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
108
Papers relating to Colonel Browne and M. Marrietti
108
DEFENCE OF HER MAJESTY.
Mr. Brougham, the Attorney General of the Queen, was heard to open the Defence of her Majesty against the Bill
112
1820. Oct. 4. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
178
Mr. Brougham was heard further to open the Defence of her Majesty against the Bill
179
1820. Oct. 4. Mr. Williams, of Counsel also for her Majesty, was heard to open the Defence against the Bill
211
1820. Oct. 5. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
264
Mr. Williams was further heard to open the Defence of her Majesty
264
James Leman examined by Mr. Denman
300
James Leman examined by the Lords
302
Anthony Butler St. Leger, esq. examined by Mr. Denman
302
The Earl of Guilford examined by Mr. Tindal
303
The Earl of Guilford cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
306
The Earl of Guilford re-examined by Mr. Tindal
309
The Earl of Guilford examined by the Lords
309
Lord Glenbervie examined by Mr. Wilde
312
Lord Glenbervie cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
314
Lord Glenbervie examined by the Lords
314
Lady Charlotte Lindsay examined by Dr. Lushington
314
Lady Charlotte Lindsay cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
316
1820. Oct. 6. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
318
Lady Charlotte Lindsay further cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
318
Lady Charlotte Lindsay further re-examined by Dr. Lushington
321
Lady Charlotte Lindsay further examined by the Lords
322
The Earl of Llandaff examined by Mr. Brougham
326
The Earl of Llandaff cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
328
The Earl of Llandaff examined by the Lords
328
The Hon. Keppel Craven examined by Mr. Denman
329
The Hon. Keppel Craven cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
335
The Hon. Keppel Craven examined by the Lords
339
Sir William Gell examined by Mr. Williams
343
Sir William Gell cross-examined by Mr. Parke
358
Sir William Gell examined by the Lords
359
1820. Oct. 7. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
363
William Carrington examined by Dr. Lushington
363
Two Questions proposed to the Judges relative to the admissibility of certain Declarations made by Teodoro Majoochi to William Carrington
379
Lady Charlotte Lindsay further examined
379
John Whitcombe examined by Mr. Tindal
382
John Whitcombe cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
384
Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinion and Answer of the Judges to the Two Questions propounded to them
391
Teodoro Majoochi examined by the Lords
393
William Carrington further examined by Dr. Lushington
394
1820. Oct. 7. William Carrington cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
395
William Carrington examined by the Lords
398
John James Sicard examined by Mr. Brougham
404
John James Sicard cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
407
John James Sicard re-examined by Mr. Brougham
410
John James Sicard examined by the Lords
410
1820. Oct. 9. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
416
Dr. Holland examined by Mr. Wilde
416
Dr. Holland cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
418
Dr. Holland re-examined by Mr. Wilde
421
Dr. Holland examined by the Lords
422
Charles Mills, esq. examined by Mr. Denman
426
Charles Mills, esq. cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
429
Charles Mills, esq. re-examined by Mr. Denman
431
Charles Mills, esq. examined by the Lords
431
Joseph Teuillé examined by Mr. Williams
432
Joseph Teuillé cross-examined by Mr. Parke
433
Joseph Teuillé examined by the Lords
435
Carlo Forti examined by Mr. Brougham
436
Carlo Forti cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
439
Carlo Forti re-examined by Mr. Brougham
445
Carlo Forti examined by the Lords
445
Lieut. John Flinn examined by Mr. Denman
446
Lieut. John Flinn cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
449
1820. Oct. 10. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
456
Lieut. John Flinn further cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
460
Lieut. John Flinn re-examined by Mr. Brougham
468
Lieut. John Flinn examined by the Lords
469
William Carrington further examined by the Lords
489
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam examined by Mr. Tindal
496
1820. Oct. 11. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
502
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam further examined by Mr. Tindal
502
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
512
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam re-examined by Mr. Tindal
533
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam examined by the Lords
536
1820. Oct. 12. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
541
Lieut. Joseph Robert Hownam further examined by the Lords
542
Granville Sharpe, esq. examined by Mr. Denman
563
Granville Sharpe, esq. cross-examined by Mr. Parke
563
Santino Gugiari examined by Dr. Lushington
564
Santino Gugiari cross-examined by Mr. Parke
566
Santino Gugiari examined by the Lords
569
1820. Oct. 12. Giuseppe Giarolini examined by Mr. Williams
571
1820. Oct. 13. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
574
Giuseppe Giarolini further examined by Mr. Williams
574
Giuseppe Giarolini cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
589
Giuseppe Giarolini re-examined by Mr. Williams
593
Giuseppe Giarolini examined by the Lords
593
Proceedings relative to the Absence of the Witness Restelli
601
John Allan Powell, esq. examined by the Lords, touching the Absence of the Witness Restelli
624
1820. Oct. 14. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
624
John Allan Powell, esq. further examined by the Lords, touching the Absence of the Witness Restelli
627
Joseph Planta, esq. examined by the Lords
651
Filippo Pomi examined by Dr. Lushington
655
Joseph Planta, esq. further examined by the Lords
666
Filippo Pomi further examined by Dr. Lushington
666
1820. Oct. 16. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
672
Sir John Poer Beresford examined by the Lords
673
Filippo Pomi cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
688
Filippo Pomi examined by the Lords
695
Bonfiglio Omati examined by Mr. Wilde
716
1820. Oct. 17. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
722
Questions submitted to the Judges relative to the Acts of the Advocate Vimercati
746
1820. Oct. 18. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
806
Question proposed for the consideration of the Judges
806
Granville Sharpe, esq. further examined by the Lords
807
Samuel Inman examined by the Lords
808
The Lord Chief Justice Abbott delivers the Opinion of the Judges upon the Questions submitted to them
808
Bonfiglio Omati further examined by Mr. Wilde
817
Bonfiglio Omati cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
820
Bonfiglio Omati re-examined by Mr. Wilde
830
Filippo Pomi further examined by Mr. Tindal
831
Filippo Pomi cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
831
Filippo Pomi examined by the Lords
832
Antonio Mioni examined by Mr. Williams
833
1820. Oct. 19. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
842
Antonio Mioni further examined by Mr. Williams
867
Antonio Mioni examined by the Lords
868
Domenico Salvadore examined by Mr. Brougham
869
Questions proposed to the Judges relative to the Declarations and Acts of the Witness Sacchi, &c.
882
1820. Oct. 20. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
884
1820. Oct. 20. Opinion and Answer of the Judges to the preceding Questions
886
The Marquis of Lansdown moves for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Correspondence between Mr. Powell and Colonel Browne, relative to the sending away of the witness Restelli
901
Colonel Alessandro Olivieri examined by Mr. Tindal
918
Colonel Alessandro Olivieri cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
921
Colonel Alessandro Olivieri re-examined by Mr. Tindal
925
Colonel Alessandro Olivieri examined by the Lords
925
1820. Oct. 21. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
926
John Allan Powell, esq. further examined by the Lords
926
Tomaso Lago Maggiore examined by Mr. Wilde
928
Tomaso Lago Maggiore cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
928
Tomaso Lago Maggiore re-examined by Mr. Wilde
932
Tomaso Lago Maggiore examined by the Lords
934
Chevalier Carlo Vassali examined by Mr. Denman
935
Chevalier Carlo Vassali cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General
942
Chevalier Carlo Vassali examined by the Lords
953
Correspondence relative to Baron d'Ende's appearance as a Witness on the part of the Queen
960
1820. Oct. 23. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
966
Report of the Secret Committee appointed to examine the Correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr. Powell, relative to the Mission of Restelli to Milan
966
Copy of the Diploma creating Lieut. Hownam a Knight of the Order of St. Caroline of Jerusalem
973
Louisa Demont further examined by the Lords
975
Fanchette Martigner examined by Mr. Williams
982
Fanchette Martigner cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General
985
Fanchette Martigner re-examined by Mr. Williams
988
Fanchette Martigner examined by the Lords
989
James Leman further examined by Mr. Tindal
990
James Leman further examined by the Lords
992
Mr. Brougham stated, that after what had appeared in the Case of Restelli, and of the Baron d'Ende, her Majesty's Counsel felt it impossible to proceed further in her Majesty's Defence
993
Mr. Attorney General applied for time for the Arrival of Colonel Browne
998
1820. Oct. 24. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1017
The Counsel in support of the Bill informed, that the House does not think fit to grant the Delay proposed
1022
Captain Thomas Briggs further examined by Mr. Attorney General
1022
Captain Thomas Briggs further cross-examined by Mr. Brougham
1023
1820. Oct. 24. Captain Thomas Briggs examined by the Lords
1025
SUMMING UP.
Mr. Denman, Solicitor General of the Queen, was heard to sum up the Evidence given on behalf of her Majesty, and to observe upon the whole Case
1027
1820. Oct. 25. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1095
Mr. Denman was further heard to sum up the Evidence given on behalf of her Majesty
1095
1820. Oct. 26. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1185
Dr. Lushington was heard to sum up the Evidence on behalf of her Majesty
1185
1820. Oct. 27. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1238
REPLY.
Mr. Attorney General was heard in Reply
1239
1820. Oct. 28. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1305
Mr. Attorney General was further and fully heard in Reply
1305
Mr. Solicitor General was in part heard also in Reply
1352
1820. Oct. 30. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1384
Mr. Solicitor General was further and fully heard in Reply
1384
Mr. Brougham tendered in Evidence certain Letters written by Baron Ompteda
1429
The Counsel were informed that the said Letters could not be received in Evidence
1439
1820. Nov. 2. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1439
Debate on the Motion, "That the said Bill be now read a second time"—Speeches of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Erskine, the Earl of Lauderdale, the Earl of Rosebery, Lord Redesdale
1439
1820. Nov. 3. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1530
Debate on the Motion, "That the said Bill be now read a second time"—Speeches of Earl Grosvenor, the Earl of Donoughmore, Earl Grey, the Earl of Liverpool
1530
1820. Nov. 4. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1590
Debate on the Motion, "That the said Bill be now read a second time"—Speeches of the Earl of Liverpool, Lord Arden, Viscount Falmouth, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Erskine, Lord De Dunstanville, Lord Manners, the Duke of Newcastle, the Marquis of Lansdown
1590
1820. Nov. 6. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1656
Debate on the Motion, "That the said Bill be now read a second time"—Speeches of the Marquis of Lansdown, the Duke of Northumberland, Lord Howard, the Earl of Enniskillen, Lord Calthorpe, the Marquis of Stafford, Lord De Clifford, Lord Grantham, the Earl of Blesington, the Earl of Gosford, the Duke of Athol, the Duke Somerset, Lord Grenville, the Earl of Rosslyn
1656
1820. Nov. 7. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1701
Debate on the Queen's Protest against the second reading of the Bill
1701
Debate on the Divorce Clause
1709
1820. Nov. 8. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1718
Further Debate on the Divorce Clause
1718
1820. Nov. 9. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1727
Debate on the said Bill being reported
1728
1820. Nov. 10. Further Proceedings on the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1732
Debate on the Motion, "That the said Bill be now read a third time"
1732
The Earl of Liverpool moves, "That the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned to this day six months"
1746
1820. Nov. 23. Both Houses prorogued by commission to the 23rd of January, 1821
1750
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1820. Sept. 18. Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty
50
Bill of Pains and Penalties—Petition from Montrose
101
Portugal
105
Bill of Pains and Penalties
105
The House adjourns to the 17th of October
108
1820. Oct. 17. Commercial Restrictions—Petition from Liverpool
748
The Queen—Bill of Pains and Penalties
749
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Liberation of Franklin, charged with writing and issuing Seditious Placards, &c.
756
The Queen—Bill of Pains and Penalties
783
The House adjourns to the 23rd of November
806
III. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
Copy of the Correspondence between Colonel Browne and M. Marrietti
109
Copy of a Letter from his late Majesty to her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, dated November 13th, 1804
207
Copy of a Letter from his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, dated April 30th, 1796
208
Copy of the Correspondence relative to Baron d'Ende's appearance as a Witness on the part of the Queen
960
Copy of the Diploma creating Lieut. Hownam a Knight of the Order of St. Caroline of Jerusalem
973
Copy of the Bill of Pains and Penalties, as amended in the Committee
1727
IV. PROTESTS.
1820. Oct. 20. PROTEST against the Appointment of a Select Committee to examine the Correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr. Powell, relative to the Mission of Restelli to Milan
913
1820. Nov. 6. PROTEST against the second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1700
1820. 10. PROTEST against adjourning the further Consideration of the Bill of Pains and Penalties
1748
V. REPORTS.
1820. Oct. 23. REPORT of the Select Committee appointed to examine the Correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr. Powell, relative to the Mission of Restelli to Milan
966
VI. LISTS.
1820. Sept. 8. LIST of the Minority on the Earl of Liverpool's Motion, relative to the Mode of Proceeding with her Majesty's Defence
38
1820. Sept. 18. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hobhouse's Motion, for an Address to his Majesty praying him to prorogue the Parliament
93
1820. Nov. 6. LIST of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents, on the Motion, "That the Bill of Pains and Penalties be now read a second time."
1688
1820. Nov. 8. LIST of the Minority on the Divorce Clause in the Bill of Pains Penalties
1726
1820. Nov. 10. LIST of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents, on the Motion "That the Bill of Pains and Penalties be now read a third time."
1744
[The Finance Accounts of this Session will be given in the Appendix to Vol. IV.]
For the QUESTIONS to the JUDGES and their ANSWERS,
See VOL. II. Page
913
See VOL. II. Page
914
See VOL. II. Page
1183
See VOL. II. Page
1191
See VOL. II. Page
1282
See VOL. II. Page
1284
See VOL. II. Page
1296
See VOL. II. Page
1302
See VOL. III. Page
379
See VOL. III. Page
391
See VOL. III. Page
746
See VOL. III. Page
806
See VOL. III. Page
808
See VOL. III. Page
883
See VOL. III. Page
886
Plan of the Polacre, as drawn by Gaetano Paturzo
Vol. II. p. 904
Plans of the Grotto at the Villa d'Este, as drawn by Santino Gugiari, and Giuseppe Giarolini
Vol. III. p. 570
Order of St. Caroline of Jerusalem
975
COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THE KING'S ADVOCATE (Sir Christopher Robinson, knt.)
MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Robert Gifford, knt.)
MR. SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir John S. Copley, knt.)
DR. ADAMS.
JAMES PARKE, esq.
SOLICITOR.
GEORGE MAULE, esq. Solicitor for the Affairs of his Majesty's Treasury.
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY.
THE QUEEN'S ATTORNEY GENERAL (Henry Brougham, esq.)
THE QUEEN'S SOLICITOR GENERAL (Thomas Denman, esq.)
DR. LUSHINGTON.
JOHN WILLIAMS, esq.
NICHOLAS TINDAL, esq.
THOMAS WILDE, esq.
SOLICITOR.
WILLIAM VIZARD, esq.
ALPHABETICAL LIST
——
P. Prosecution. D. Defence.
Chief Examination.
Cross-Examination.
Re-Examination.
Examination by the Lords.
Vol.
Page
Page
Page
Page
Beresford, Sir John Poer
D
III.
..
to
..
..
..
..
..
673
to
678
Bianche, Giuseppe
P
II.
1087
..
1089
1089
to
1091
1091
to
1092
Bianchi, Antonio
P
—
1244
..
1245
..
..
..
..
1245
Birollo, Francesco
P
—
937
..
944
944
..
946
..
..
946
..
948
Briggs, Captain Thomas
P
—
951
..
953
953
..
954
954
..
954
..
958
III.
1022
..
1023
1023
..
1025
1025
..
1025
Brusa, Domenico
P
—
1242
..
1244
Carrington, William
D
—
363
..
365
..
..
..
394
..
395
395
..
398
398
..
404
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
489
..
406
Cassina, Francesco
P
II.
1249
..
1250
1250
Craven, Hon. Keppel
D
III.
329
..
335
335
..
339
..
..
339
..
343
Cuchi, Pietro
P
II.
958
..
961
961
..
964
965
..
966
966
..
969
Dell' Orto, Giuseppe
P
—
1262
..
1263
1263
Demont, Louisa
P
—
1111
..
1157
1157
..
1206
1206
..
1211
1211
..
1220
The Letters
1221
..
1234
..
..
..
..
—
975
..
980
980
..
981
..
..
981
..
982
Fiuetti, Alessandro
P
—
1239
..
1242
Flinn, Lieutenant John
D
III.
446
..
449
449
..
468
468
..
469
469
..
489
Forti, Carlo
D
—
436
..
439
439
..
445
445
..
445
..
446
Galdini, Luigi
P
II.
1233
..
1236
1236
..
1237
1237
..
1238
1238
..
1239
Galli, Giuseppe
P
—
1258
..
1260
1260
..
1261
..
..
1261
Gargiulo, Vincenzo
P
—
915
..
923
923
..
928
..
928
..
932
Gell, Sir William
D
III.
343
..
358
358
..
359
..
..
359
..
363
Giarolini, Ginseppe
D
—
571
..
589
589
..
593
593
..
593
..
597
Glenbervie, Lord
D
—
312
..
314
314
..
..
..
314
Guggiari, Giuseppe
P
II.
1263
..
1264
1264
..
1265
1265
..
1265
..
1266
Guglari, Santino
D
III.
564
..
566
566
..
569
..
..
569
..
571
Guilford, Earl of
D
—
303
..
306
306
..
309
309
..
309
..
312
Hase, Robert
P
II.
1319
..
..
1319
..
1320
Holland, Dr. Henry
D
III.
416
..
418
418
..
423
421
..
421
422
..
426
Hownam, Joseph Robert
D
—
496
..
512
512
..
533
533
..
536
536
..
563
Inman, Samuel
D
—
..
..
Kress, Meidge Barbara
P
II.
969
..
973
975
..
1085
..
..
1085
..
1087
Llandaff, Earl of
D
III.
326
..
328
328
..
..
..
328
..
329
Leman, James
D
—
300
..
302
..
..
..
..
302
—
990
..
992
..
..
..
..
992
..
993
Lindsay, Lady Charlotte
D
—
314
..
316
316
..
321
321
..
322
322
..
326
—
Letter
..
379
Lucini, Giovanni
P
II.
1245
..
1247
1247
..
..
..
1247
Maggiore, Tomaso Lago
D
III.
927
..
928
928
..
932
932
..
934
934
..
935
Majoochi, Teodoro
P
II.
804
..
841
841
..
873
874
..
881
—
..
..
..
933
..
937
..
..
937
—
..
..
..
1331
..
1337
1337
..
1338
1338
..
1339
III.
..
..
..
..
..
..
393
..
394
Martigner, Fanchette
D
—
982
..
985
985
..
988
..
..
988
..
989
Mejani, Gerolamo
P
II.
1099
..
1100
1100
..
1103
1103
Mills, Charles, esq.
D
III.
426
..
429
429
..
431
431
..
431
..
432
Mioni, Antonio
D
—
833
..
867
..
..
..
..
868
..
869
Oggioni, Paola
P
II.
1104
..
1106
1106
..
1108
1108
..
1109
1109
..
1111
Olivieri, Col. Alessandro
D
III.
918
..
921
921
..
925
925
..
925
..
926
Omati, Bonfiglio
D
—
716
..
820
820
..
830
830
..
..
..
Paturzo, Gaetano
P
II.
889
..
895
896
..
899
900
..
900
..
906
Pechell, Captain Samuel
P
—
948
..
949
..
..
..
..
950
Planta, Joseph, esq.
D
III.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
651
..
652
—
..
..
..
652
..
653
..
..
666
Pomi, Filippo
D
—
665
..
666
688
..
695
..
..
695
..
716
—
..
..
..
831
..
832
..
..
832
..
833
Powell, John Allan, esq.
D
—
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
624
..
641
—
..
..
..
641
..
647
..
..
647
—
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
926
Raggazoni, Paolo
P
II.
1092
..
1095
1095
..
1098
1098
—
1103
..
..
..
Rancatti, Carlo
P
—
1247
..
1249
1249
Restelli, Giuseppe
P
—
1250
..
1252
1252
..
1258
..
..
1258
Sacchi, Giuseppe
P
—
1266
..
1275
1275
..
1289
1289
..
1312
1312
..
1319
Salvadore, Domenico
D
III.
869
Sharpe, Granville, esq.
D
—
563
..
..
563
..
564
Sicard, John Jacob
D
—
404
..
407
407
..
410
410
..
410
..
416
St. Ledger, An. Butler, esq.
D
—
302
..
303
Teuillé, Joseph
D
—
432
..
433
433
..
435
..
..
435
Vassali, Chevalier Carlo
D
—
935
..
941
942
..
953
..
..
953
..
956
Whitcombe, John
D
—
382
..
384
384
..
385
..
..
390
..
391
During the First Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the. Twenty-first Day of April 1820, in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth
1820.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, September 8, 1820.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES
DEFENCE.
The House was called over; and the order of the day being read, for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intitled "An Act to deprive "Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Eliza "beth of the title, perogatives, rights, "privileges, and exemption 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; Counsel were accordingly called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
—In obedience to the commands of the House, I have now to ask you of Counsel to the Queen, in what manner you propose to proceed in the Defence?
Mr. Brougham (Attorney-General of the Queen)
.—My lords; it is our wish to proceed forthwith.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Proceeding forthwith, do you mean that it is your wish to proceed in opening the Case, and then following it immediately by Evidence, or to open the Case, and then to pray time to produce the Evidence? I understand it to be my duty to ask you that question.
Mr. Brougham.
—Undoubtedly, my lords, we wish to give every information to the House, consistently with our duty to our
2
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that it was obvious, after the answer just given by her majesty's attorney-general, that it was necessary be should have a longer time allowed to bring over his witnesses. He thought, however, the answer given by the counsel to the question put by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, was by no means as explicit as it ought to be; and he therefore trusted that the counsel would be called upon to give a more definite answer.
Lord Erskine
was of opinion, that the learned counsel ought now to be permitted to proceed with his case in defence of her majesty the Queen, without be-
3
4
5
6
7
ex-parte
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the question on which their lordships were now called upon to decide was precisely this—whether, if an adjournment were necessary, that adjournment should take place at the time the case for the bill had closed; or whether the counsel against the bill should be permitted to make his opening speech, and then to have an adjournment before the production of his evidence. Now, he was prepared to contend, that if the House adjourned at all, the present was the proper time when that adjournment ought to take place [Hear, hear!]. They could take no other course respecting an adjournment without committing great injustice. He was perfectly ready to concur in opinion with his noble and learned friend, that an adjournment at any time was a great evil; but they had in this case a choice of evils, and they were bound to select the lesser of the two. It was true that, if they adjourned now for the space of two months, both the evidence and the speech of the solicitor-general would go forth to the world during such a recess; but it was a mistake to say it went forth unaccompanied by cross-examination; for there had been cross-examination, and the adjournment afforded
8
9
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had never, in the course of a professional life, felt more strongly inclined to avoid any duty, than that which he now was called upon to execute. He begged to be understood as by no means opposing the indulgence in the first instance suggested—the giving time to counsel, if time they required, for the preparation of their defence; but, painful as it was for the House to resolve upon a course, the effect of their resolution would not be confined either to the present case or to the present day; they must act upon some principle on which they could fairly leave the future and the general administration of justice. Most unjustifiably he should disguise his opinion if he said, that evil did not attend the view which he had taken of the case. True, every individual who sat in that House would stand convicted of violating his duty, if he suffered himself to infer any thing even approaching to guilt from the evidence which had been laid before him. It was the duty of the House to remember, that every syllable of it was capable of being disproved, and to guide its conduct by that recollection; but, at the same time, it would be most unjust to represent, it was impossible even to hope, that either the House or the public could, after what they had heard, go away without some prejudice unfavourable to the Queen. Their lordships, then, had but a
10
11
12
Earl Grey
declared, that the present question seemed to him most important in every point of view. It was important as it affected the pending proceeding—important as it affected the influence and the character of the House; and he should have felt himself unworthy of that rank which he always hoped to hold in the opinion of their lordships as an honest and independent peer—if not blessed with those brilliant talents which upon some occasions he could wish to command—if he had not upon such a question offered his opinion in opposition to that of the noble and learned lord who had last sat down. He agreed that it was a case of difficulty, and it was with difficulty that he had come to a conclusion upon it. He had hesitated, doubted, and when he should at last decide, he should feel with the noble and learned lord that he took a choice of evils. With that noble and learned lord, however, he could go no further. He could not agree that the present difficulty ought not to be ascribed to the previous proceedings of the House. It appeared to him to arise entirely out of those proceedings—out of the refusal to give in this case to the Queen that certainty of situation, that specification of crime, and that knowledge of witnesses, which the law of England allowed to every individual similarly situated. The noble and learned lord upon the woolsack had made an assertion—which was merely an assertion—that even if those advantages (rights he ought rather to have called them) had been granted, the counsel for the defence must at last have come to an application for delay. He was at a loss to understand upon what principle that assertion could be grounded. If the specification of charges, the list of witnesses, and the other advantages had been given, nothing could have occurred, as it appeared to him, to entitle her majesty's counsel to make such an application; nothing which could give them any claim to a deviation from those forms in similar cases commonly observed; but, refused those rights by the noble earl opposite, and by the House at large—attacked by charges spreading, in time, over a period of six years, and in space over three quarters of the world—denied that specification of facts, that list of witnesses,
13
14
15
"Perfidious bark,
"Built in th' eclipse, and rigg'd with curses dark."—
16
17
The Earl of Liverpool
was ready, he said, to admit the proposition which had been laid down by the noble earl in the beginning of his speech, and with the repetition of which he had closed it—that if the question were one of equal disadvantage to either side, the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to her majesty. But the question for the House to consider was, whether the inconvenience on
18
ex parte;
19
20
21
ex parte
22
23
24
The Marquis of Lansdown
was anxious to offer a few words, for the purpose of calling their lordships' attention to the order of their proceedings. As far as he knew, there was no question before the House; no application had been made for delay, as he understood, by the counsel lately at the bar; and no motion had been submitted to their lordships that this House should adjourn. He knew too well the propriety of conduct which distinguished the learned lord on the woolsack, to imagine that he could think himself justified, after the difference of opinion which had been manifested, in stating any thing to counsel at the bar, without an express direction from the House; and he now desired to know (he hoped it was not disorderly in him to do so) what it was the noble earl opposite wished to move should be stated to counsel in the name of the House.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that a motion was about to be proposed relative to the statement to be made to counsel when they were called in.
25
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that now understanding distinctly, for the first time, the terms of the proposition before the House—a proposition not occasioned by any application from counsel at the bar, and no reason having been given to them for proposing that such a communication should be made to counsel in this stage of the business—he felt himself called on to state, with all humility (not being so much acquainted with the course of proceedings in the courts below, nor in matters of higher judicature, as many of their lordships were), that, so far as he was informed on the subject, a more unusual communication than that now proposed to be made to counsel at the bar, had never been known in any court of judicature whatsoever. He would go farther, and say, that if, in answer to that communication, the learned counsel at the bar stated that he would not agree to cither proposition, but that he would reserve himself, in performing his duty towards his client, to make such application to their lordships as he might think fit at the moment, and under the peculiar circumstances of the period which might call for that application—if the learned counsel said this, he would, in his opinion, do nothing more than discharge the duty which he owed to his client. And he believed, that, of all the learned counsel who were lately at their lordships' bar, there was not one who would think it consistent with his duty to enter into such a regulation as that now proposed for their lordships' adoption. A more extraordinary proceeding never occurred in a court of justice: such a proceeding was, in fact, never before heard of. A proposition was made to their lordships for the purpose of opening a treaty, and entering into a compact with counsel at their bar—with individuals selected to perform a most important duty. Surely so extraordinary a proceeding was never before contemplated in a court of judicature. What was proposed to be done? Nothing less than this—that the learned counsel at the bar, who were ready to proceed—who stated they were ready to proceed—who had a right to proceed, on account of the situation in which the case now stood—should
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The Earl of Carnarvon
allowed that their lordships were placed in circumstances of great difficulty, in consequence of their having refused to grant her majesty a list of the witnesses, and a specification of the charges to be preferred against her. Had that refusal not taken place, and had a proper time been allowed to the counsel for her majesty to prepare her defence, their lordships would have been enabled to proceed in a way analogous to the usual forms in all courts of justice. The unfortunate decision to which he alluded had been the fruitful parent of a multitude of evils. He was far, however, from thinking that those evils would be amended by adopting the course recommended by his noble friend who had just sat down. On the contrary, unjust and anomalous as in his opinion had been the refusal of their lordships to afford a list of witnesses, and a specification of the charges, it would be ten times more unjust and anomalous to permit the counsel against the bill to open the case for the defence, and then to defer calling the evidence by which the allegations of that case were to be substantiated. His noble friend had asked if their lordships were to enter into a capitulation with the counsel at the bar. Was not that what they were daily doing? With respect to this very circumstance of delay, had it not been already stated to their lordships by the counsel, that if their lordships agreed to the resolution for refusing a list of witnesses, and a specification of the times and places of alleged offence, two months delay must be afforded them for preparation, and had not their lordships, on their part, intimated to counsel, that if they did agree to the resolution they would concede that delay? That was a pledge which their lordships had given; counsel were now called upon to say, whether they would avail themselves of that pledge, or at once enter on the defence. He willingly allowed the inconvenience of any interruption whatever, and he admitted that their lordships were, with reference to their former proceeding, responsible for that inconvenience. But the question now was, by what mode to meet the inconveniencies of the case? Were those inconveniencies, emanating, as they did, from the very nature of the case—was the impression which it was apprehended would be made on their
33
"———spargere voces,
In vulgum ambiguas."
34
The Lord Chancellor
begged to be allowed to state the view in which he conceived that there had been no compact, no stipulation, with the counsel. Their lordships had authorised him to put a question to the counsel at the bar. The answer to that question had not been given in the usual and ordinary way. When that was stated, and upon the principle from which he could never be removed, that a counsel, when he stated his case, was understood to be ready with his evidence, he conceived that the only question was, to open the defence then, or to ask delay. He had put the question to the counsel in a manner which he thought the most respectful to the House and to the counsel; and when the counsel said, that he was ready to open his defence, he was thereby understood to be ready with his proofs, and not merely to circulate statements, which, by the way, if delay intervened, might be put into the hands of witnesses. When he stated the ordinary mode of proceeding, he did not mean to shut out deviations which might be allowed in extraordinary cases. On special grounds, further time would be granted in the present case; but it must be implied that they were going on, unless the contrary was fully understood, on the ordinary grounds.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that differing, as he did, on the present occasion, from many of his noble friends, he felt it necessary to state the ground of his opinions as shortly as he could. It appeared to him, that the arguments of the noble lord, forcible as they were, were founded on an analogy to the courts below. He did not mean to deprecate the authority of the courts; on the contrary, he believed, if there was any thing that commanded respect and confidence in this country, it was the administration of justice in those courts. Entertaining this opinion, it appeared to him that the House, as a court of judicature, should not deviate from the course of proceeding in the courts below, but on very strong grounds, though certainly the House had a right to act upon their own discretion. If there were any
35
36
Lord Redesdale
lamented that the present proceeding had taken place at all. He had considered the subject with much anxiety and with the utmost attention, and the result of his observations went to convince him that the best mode of proceeding would have been by impeachment. He founded that opinion on the highest authority, on the authority of a great man, lord Somers, who had been the principal instrument of bringing about the Revolution of 1688. In a trial by impeachment, they had nothing to do but to lay down the law, and to declare what the law was—their judgment would be the judgment of the law itself; but he did not see that they had a right to make a law to meet a particular case. It was, in his opinion, going directly contrary to ancient statutes and established usage. With respect to refusing a list of witnesses, so much complained of, he did not see how it was at all possible to furnish such a list; and as to the extraordinary course which their lordships were now called upon to take, he was of opinion that such a course was impracticable and would be most mischievous. They were called upon to allow counsel, who stood not at all responsible for his statement, to make whatever statement he might think fit, and to leave it for a length of time under the public eye, unanswered and unrefuted. As to what had been said to show that the adjournment ought to have taken place, if at all, before the solicitor-general summed up the evidence, he would ask, what did the statement of that learned person amount to? To nothing more than the recapitulation of the evidence. The case would be quite different with respect to the statement of counsel for the Queen. There was no balance between the two cases—one predominated greatly above the other.
The Earl of Darnley
thought himself bound to make a few observations in the conscientious discharge of that most difficult and painful duty which, in common with all their lordships, he had to perform. He must confess he could attach but little importance to what had been said by his noble friend (the earl of Carnarvon) respecting the inconvenience that would result if they allowed counsel to proceed at present with a statement of the defence, which would necessarily produce considerable influence on the public mind. That consideration was unquestionably an objection to what had been said by his
37
38
The House then divided: Contents, 165; Not-contents, 60. Majority for the resolution, 105.
List of the Minority.
Duke of Glocester
Rosebery
Somerset
Besborough
Grafton
Darnley
St. Alban's
Caledon
Bedford
Blesinton
Devonshire
Vise Bolingbroke
Hamilton
Torrington
Argyll
Hood
Leinster
Gage
Marq.of Lansdown
Anson
Downshire
Duncan
Earl of Derby
Clifden
Suffolk
Downe
Thanet
Lord De Clifford
Essex
Saye & Sole
Jersey
Ducie
Albemarle
King
Cowper
Holland
Stanhope
Belhaven
Oxford
Kenyon
Filzwilliam
Bolton
Darlington
Foley
Stair
Alvanley
Grosvenor
Calthorpe
Romney
Dundas
Fortescue
Erskine
Breadalbane
Hawke
Rosslyn
Gwydir
Grey
Yarborough
Minto
Auckland
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
—The House has commanded me to inform the Counsel for her Majesty, That if they think proper now to proceed to state the Case of her majesty, and mean to produce Evidence, they must proceed at the close of the statement of the case to produce the whole evidence intended to be adduced, such being the usual course of proceeding; but that the House are willing to adjourn for such reasonable time as the counsel for her majesty may propose, in order that when
39
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords; if by stating the case on behalf of her majesty is meant opening the evidence which her majesty may have to adduce in her behalf, should she be advised to adduce evidence at all—then, my lords, I have humbly to submit to your lordships, that should her majesty be advised to adduce evidence at all, I have no wish whatever, on behalf of her majesty to state the case, in that sense of the word; that is to say, to expound even one tittle of that evidence, until a certain reasonable delay shall have been granted by your lordships; but if your lordships will allow me, on behalf of her majesty, to make another application, I would humbly submit to your lordships our claim upon the justice and indulgence of the House, to be allowed in this present stage of the proceedings, that is to say, at what hour to-morrow your lordships may think fit to appoint, to be heard to comment upon the case already made out on the other side; binding myself in the course of that comment, not to offer to your lordships one single word describing or in any way opening or even alluding to the particulars of any statement of evidence which we may hereafter, after having made our comments on the case made out on the other side, advise her majesty to bring forward upon her part. I trust I have made myself understood by your lordships.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if he rightly understood the application of the learned counsel, it was, that he might be permitted, to-morrow, to comment on the evidence in support of the bill without going any further into a statement of the defence. He considered comments on the evidence for the prosecution to be, in the strictest sense, a part of the statement of the defendant's case; and as such he was of opinion that this application could not be granted consistently with the decision to which their lordships had come on that point. Justice to the witnesses required that the value of their evidence should be estimated, not by the comments of counsel, but by evidence adduced on the other side.
Lord Erskine
asked, if they refused the
40
The House divided on lord Erskine's motion: Contents, 49; Not-contents, 170. Majority, 121.
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
—I am commanded by the House to inform you of her majesty's counsel, that you will not be allowed to comment to-morrow on the evidence adduced in support of the bill—
Mr. Brougham
—Without going on?
The Lord Chancellor
—Without going on. Have you any thing to propose in consequence of that?
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords; placed in this new and unprecedented situation, I entreat your lordships to allow us till tomorrow to form our opinions, and finally come to a resolution of peculiar importance in the management of this case.
The Lord Chancellor.
—At what time would you wish to-morrow?
Mr. Brougham.
—At whatever time most suits the convenience of your lordships.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Your lordships have placed the counsel in that very si-
41
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, September 9, 1820.
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 Counsel were accordingly called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
—The House is desirous to know from you of counsel for the Queen, what course you wish to pursue.
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords; her majesty's counsel deemed it their duty, be fore answering the question of which they had notice yesterday, to wait upon her majesty last night, which they all did, with the exception of my learned friend, Mr. Williams, who concurs with us, how ever, in opinion, and who is gone upon professional duty to York We communicated to her majesty the decision which your lordship communicated to us at the bar yesterday; namely, that your lord ships would not permit us to be heard at present to comment upon the case as made out against the Queen. We have received her majesty's commands to inform your lord ships, that we shall be ready to proceed, as speedily as possible, to answer the case made out for the bill, and to tender that in defence of her majesty; but as this will require a few days preparation among the professional gentlemen entrusted with her majesty's defence in the different branches of the profession, we have, on her majesty's part, to beg your lordships to have the goodness to grant us that short delay. Her majesty's anxiety to proceed continues unabated: it is rather, as your lord ships may perhaps expect, increased, by some of the parts of the case against her; and, yielding to that very natural, and I
42
The Counsel were directed to withdraw
The Earl of Liverpool
stated, that whenever it was determined to enter upon the defence, the time ought to be such, as, in the opinion of the parties who had to make it, afforded them an ample opportunity for every full and necessary preparation. That time, however, ought to be left solely and entirely to the discretion of the counsel of her majesty the Queen. No personal consideration whatever ought to influence their lordships in the progress of the cause. Whatever time her majesty thought necessary to prepare her defence ought to be allowed, without reference to any consideration for the time which their lordships were under the necessity of devoting to the consideration of the subject.
The Earl of Darnley
perfectly concurred in the propriety of what had fallen from the noble earl on the subject of awaiting the time required by her majesty's counsel to prepare her defence; but he understood the learned counsel, when he named Monday fortnight, to allude indefinitely to the time. Now, would it not be proper the learned counsel should state at once a definitive period? Let a day be fixed when all the preparations could be arranged, and let it be as distant as they pleased, rather than prematurely immediate. He agreed that no day ought to be named which the learned counsel did not deem perfectly convenient and suitable. Their lordships were bound not to attend to their own personal convenience; but still bethought a positive day ought to be fixed.
Earl Grey
entirely agreed in what had fallen from the noble lords who preceded him, that they were bound primarily to consider the convenience of her majesty the Queen. He hoped, however, that it would not be deemed indecorous for him also to put in some minor claim in behalf of the convenience of their lordships. It was quite impossible that their lordships should not feel much inconvenience by an absence from their families at this period of the year. For himself, he attended at
43
The Earl of Liverpool
concurred fully with the noble earl; but their lordships must still bear in mind, that their proceeding in this stage of the business ought to be entirely governed by the convenience of her majesty and her counsel. The idea of personal convenience to themselves their lordships were bound to banish from their minds, though he was not insensible bow severely this duty must necessarily press upon their lordships. Independently of the convenience of the Queen, there was one person whose convenience he thought their lordships were bound to consult, namely, the noble and learned lord who sat on the woolsack. The situation of that distinguished person was such as to impose upon him public duties which could hardly be said to give him any repose. His duties did not, like those of other judges, give him leisure when his court was up; for he had, even in whatever momentary retirement he could snatch, to toil over the business of his official situation. If no personal convenience were sought after by her majesty's counsel, most certainly none ought to be looked for even by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; but if any convenience could be looked for after that of
44
The Lord Chancellor
expresssed his gratitude for the disposition manifested towards him, but he felt it to be his duty to state, that no personal consideration should be suffered to weigh with him for a moment in a matter of this sort. He should be ready at the earliest period that would suit their lordships, to discharge, to the best of his power, the most painful duty that devolved upon him on this occasion. He could not but feel uneasiness under any circumstances, when contemplating the business before their lordships, but that uneasiness would be augmented; if any delay in the proceedings were suffered to take place on his account.
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought, that, on an occasion like the present, it was his duty to forget all considerations of his own private or personal convenience. He was confident their lordships participated in this feeling. He wished the counsel at the bar to state whether it would suit them that the period fixed for the re-assembling of the House should rather exceed than fall short of the time that had been named.
Earl Grey
suggested, that her majesty's counsel should be called in and asked, whether they would be ready to proceed on Monday fortnight, without inconvenience or detriment to her majesty's interests.
The Earl of Harrowby
remarked, that the Queen's counsel had asked for time till at or about Monday fortnight. Their lordships ought to know precisely on what day her majesty's legal advisers would certainly be ready to proceed with the defence. From their having proposed that the trial should be resumed at or about Monday fortnight, he was led to think they considered it probable that they might be ready to proceed on that day, but not quite certain. In case they were not quite certain that they should be ready on that day, it might be for the convenience of the House that the period of their re-assembling should be fixed for a few days later, so that they might be absolutely certain of going on with the defence when they at length met. He did not say that it might be necessary to add a week to the delay called for, but perhaps it would be advisable to name some intermediate day.
45
Earl Grey
begged to move their lordships, that her majesty's counsel should be called in, and asked if they could state that they should be prepared to proceed on Monday fortnight.
The Earl of Liverpool
thought they ought to take up the learned counsel's own words, and ask, in the first instance, what had been meant by "at or about Monday fortnight?" He recommended that this question should be forthwith put, as this phrase "at or about" rather appeared to mean more than less than a fortnight.
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Mr. Brougham; you are understood to have used the words "at or about Monday fortnight." You are desired to explain what you mean by the words "at or about Monday fortnight."
Mr. Brougham
.—If your lordships will give me leave, I will say this—We were very unwilling to take upon ourselves to fix, as it were, the precise day; wishing to yield ourselves, as far as we could consistently with our duty to our client, to the convenience of your lordships; which would be always the more a rule to us, the more your lordships desired to consult our convenience. But, my lords, I have no objection now to state to your lordships, that although her majesty is very anxious, from motives which I think will be duly appreciated by your lordships, to proceed at the very earliest day, I will take upon myself to say, as her law adviser, in which I believe I have the concurrence of all my learned friends near me, and of that most respectable person, Mr. Vizard, who is her solicitor, and whose information upon a question of this sort your lordships know is almost of more importance than that of any other person, considering the branch of the case which is entrusted to him—I will take upon myself, after such advice and information, humbly to submit to your lordships, that Monday three weeks, the second of October, would be that which would be suitable, if if should be found consistent with the convenience of your lordships.
Earl Grey
said, that the period mentioned by the counsel for the Queen was so very inconvenient to him, that he feared, from the nature of his private engagements, he should be under the necessity of applying to the House for leave of absence upon that occasion.
46
Lord Melville
could not but think that the period of three weeks was as inconvenient a term as possibly could be. He really hoped that if the House were disposed to grant such delay, they would grant a period something longer.
Lord Erskine.
—My lords, I hope that my noble friend who sits by me, will reconsider the application which he has just made to your lordships, because it would be most painful to me to resist it, which I should feel myself bound to do. I cannot state in his presence the value I put upon his attendance on all occasions in this House, and even if he were absent it would be Unnecessary, as it must be equally felt by every one of your lordships. I hope it will not be considered as any breach of that friendship I have so long felt for him, if I should divide the House, if any such motion should be made.
The Earl of Liverpool
conceived, that, after what had been stated by the counsel for her majesty the Queen, he could not think her anxiety ought to cede to the convenience of any noble lord.
The Earl of Darlington
was satisfied that nothing more inconvenient than the adjourning for the period of three weeks could have been proposed to the House; and, if their lordships at all consulted their own convenience, the motion would never be assented to. It would be recollected by their lordships, that when the counsel for her majesty was asked by the House, after the solicitor general had concluded, when he should be ready to proceed with his defence, he replied "forthwith." It was therefore most extraordinary that her majesty's counsel should have altered their course so suddenly.
The Earl of Liverpool
could not agree with the noble lord who spoke last, in the view he took of the subject. He understood that the sole purpose for which the House this morning met, was to consider what delay the counsel for the Queen should require. When Mr. Brougham said, that he wished the House to meet again "at or about a fortnight," from the present time, he understood him to mean that that was the shortest possible time, on account of the Queen, that her defence could be proceeded in. But on consulting with her other legal advisers, and above all with her respectable solicitor, he was of opinion that three weeks was a period, at the expiration of which he was more certain of being able to pro-
47
Lord Falmouth
said, that residing as he did at a great distance from London, and having business which made it very material to him individually that he should be in the country at the period which had been last mentioned by the learned counsel for her majesty, he nevertheless entirely concurred with the sentiments expressed by the noble lord at the head of the Treasury, as to think that all private business should yield to the convenience and the claim of her majesty, as stated by her counsel at the bar. When he said this, however, he felt desirous of expressing the earnest hope he entertained, that the learned counsel would not ask for further time, after the period in question should expire, without a good and satisfactory reason. He did not mean to say that such a reason if might not arise, but he thought that it would be most vexatious to noble lords who, like himself, might reside at a distance from London, if after having, from their sense of paramount duty, so readily assented to the request of the learned counsel for a delay of three weeks, perhaps the most convenient one to them that could have been proposed, they should find the defence was not then to proceed. He therefore did hope it was to be thoroughly and clearly understood, that, without some satisfactory and conclusive reason, and one which could not now be foreseen, no further delay in proceeding upon the defence of her majesty was to be proposed.
Lord Rolle
said, that after counsel had at first mentioned a fortnight, he was rather surprised to hear them ask for three weeks.
The Duke of Athol
said, that the question of the time of re-assembling lay entirely with her majesty's counsel. The House merely wanted to know the day to which they thought it necessary the defence should be postponed It was of no consequence where a noble lord resided, whether in Middlesex or Aberdeen; it would be his duty to attend on that day. At present an adjournment of three weeks was proposed; an interval which he hoped would enable noble lords to refresh themselves after the fatiguing business they had gone through. But after sitting so long as they had done, and enduring no common portion of trouble and fatigue in getting through one side of the case—he
48
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
—The House understand that you are assured you will be able to proceed on Tuesday three weeks.
Mr. Brougham
Without any doubt, my lords. I fixed the very latest date I dared. It gives me great uneasiness to fix this day, or to ask your lordships to fix this day, on more accounts than one. It is extremely inconvenient to all the learned counsel, for it is the first day of the sittings at Guildhall, but we cannot help it. It is we who have fixed it—not the Queen.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor then put the question, and it was ordered, that the House do adjourn to Tuesday, the 3rd day of October next.
The Counsel were again called in.
The Lord Chancellor.
.—Before the counsel leave the bar, I wish to ask again, whether there is any objection, on the part of the counsel on either side, to the examining lord Frederick Montague, who is abroad, and who is named as a witness for her Majesty, in some manner by commission, that her majesty may have the benefit of that evidence without his lordship coming here; which I understand he is incapable of doing.
The Earl of Liverpool
—I trust your lordships will seriously consider this, before it is determined that such a proceeding should take place in a case of a penal character. I should humbly submit to the learned counsel themselves, that it is very desirable that no such application should be pressed. I have no divided opinion upon it, as a matter of law; I wish to hear the opinion of others; but I cannot help saying I have a very strong feeling.
The Lord Chancellor.
—I thought it my duty to mention to your lordships, that such an application had been made. It cannot be assented to, unless it is consented to on both sides—whether, with the consent of the counsel at the bar, it should be assented to is a matter for your lordships.—Mr. Attorney General, there are two witnesses who have been named to attend on the part of her majesty, lord
49
Mr. Attorney General.
—My lords; I feel myself placed in a very delicate situation, in consequence of the application which your lordships have just made to me. I am directed by your lordships to produce the evidence at your lordships' bar. I therefore must confess that I hardly feel myself authorized to give a consent to this application. If it shall seem to your lordships meet, under the circumstances—if it shall appear to your lordships, that this is an application that ought to be granted—under those circumstances, I shall be bound to give it: but I apprehend it is rather for your lordships to consider, whether the circumstances are such as to induce you to take this extraordinary mode of proceeding, to examine witnesses by a commission abroad, and not to have their depositions
vivá voce
The Lord Chancellor.
—It appears to me, my lords, that is all the answer the attorney-general can be expected to give. He is directed to produce the witnesses at your lordships bar; and it must be for your lordships to decide whether you will depart from the usual course.
The Counsel was directed to withdraw.
Lord Holland
thought no such commission should be granted, unless it could be justified by some analogy in the practice of the courts below in criminal cases. He doubted much whether any such analogy could be shown.
The Earl of Rosslyn
observed, that the observations which had last fallen from the attorney-general, placed the question in quite a new situation. It appeared from what he had said, that he considered himself as no party in the case, but as the servant of the House, thus making their lordships the parties prosecutors to the bill. If the granting of the commission, therefore, were to be a question depending on the consent of the parties, the House would, in fact, be the parties, and be thus both parties and judges. He trusted the House would take care how they involved themselves in any such anomalous proceeding.
The Lord Chancellor
.—mentioned to your lordships the other day, when I took notice of this matter, that there were in-
50
Lord Redesdale
said, there was an act of parliament which authorised the taking of depositions by judges in the colonies, who were empowered to put questions to the deponent for the purpose of eliciting the truth; so absolutely necessary did it appear to the legislature, that the witness should be personally examined. If their lordships were to be guided by the principles of that act, it would be necessary to have a knowledge of the facts to be deposed to, in order that the questions might be prepared which the judge should put to the witness.
Ordered, That the further consideration and second reading of the said Bill be adjourned to Tuesday the 3rd of October.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, September 18, 1820.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES
The Chancel-
51
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
observed, that, after all that had passed upon this subject, after the strong expressions used in debate regarding the nature of the pending proceeding, and the opinions so industriously circulated in all quarters, it was fit, for the honour and character of the House, as well as for the satisfaction of the country, that the inquiry should be conducted with the utmost possible solemnity. He submitted, therefore, whether it might not be expedient that a bill should be brought in, to enable the House of Commons to examine witnesses upon oath. He did not himself feel authorized to propose such a bill: a man so private and unknown as he was, could scarcely hope to have influence enough to carry it through; but he trusted that the executive government would take the subject into consideration.
Mr. Creevey
said, he was in doubt whether he rightly understood the hon. and learned gentleman. Within the last few days, reports had been circulated of an intended motion, on the part of persons who were to be looked upon as the prosecutors of the Queen, to induce the House to renounce the right it now enjoyed, and had always possessed since it had been a House of Commons, of examining witnesses at the bar. He was not sure, therefore, whether what the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed was not intended to sound the country on the subject, and whether the suggestion had not been made with the privity of ministers. [Mr. Serjeant Onslow said, across the floor, "On my honour, no."] He did not say that such was the design of the hon. and learned gentleman, but it might have that effect. If such a rumour were true, and if, after having degraded the King, the Queen, and the other House of Parliament, ministers proceeded to deprive the House of Commons of its undoubted and most valuable privilege of
52
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
, in explanation, said, that he had been misapprehended. He perfectly agreed with the hon. gentleman, that were the House to forego its privilege of examining witnesses at the bar, in such a case as that in question, it would degrade itself for ever. He declared upon his honour, that he had never had any communication with his majesty's ministers, or with any other person, on the subject of the proposition, which he had ventured to suggest to the House, and which proposition, so far from being any abandonment of the privileges of the House, as to the examination of witnesses, was to enable the House to examine witnesses on oath.
Mr. Bernal
, in the present stage of the proceedings, protested against any extension of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It would be to him a subject of the most solemn regret to see the power of examining witnesses on oath assumed by that House. Nothing could be more dangerous to the liberty of the subject, than to invest that House with any such inquisitorial authority. If such a proposition should actually be made, he did hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned member would, on consideration, vote against its reception, on the ground of its tyrannical and dangerous character.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he would not be deterred by the reflection that the subject might have fallen into abler hands, from saying a few words upon it. When he considered the fresh and increasing difficulties in which the House and the country were involved, he certainly had looked round with a hope that some hon. gentleman of more importance than himself,
53
in limine
54
The Speaker
interposed, and called the hon. gentleman to order. Some allusion, in such a case as the present, might, perhaps, be allowable, to what might have occurred in the other House of Parliament; but he put it to the good sense of the honourable gentleman, whether to enter into such details, as to the divisions which had taken place there, was not an infringement, not merely of the form, but of the substance of the rules of the House of Commons?
Mr. Hobhouse
disclaimed any wish to violate the rules of parliament. He had thought himself justified in making the allusions which he had done on the present occasion. He meant to refer merely to what was perfectly notorious.
Mr. Calcraft
conceived, that if the hon. gentleman confined himself to a statement of the divisions he would be in order, as the House of Commons, having access to the Journals of the House of Lords, had a right to be informed on that subject.
Mr. Hobhouse
proceeded. He had considered himself justified in alluding to what was not only notorious, but to what in fact had become matter of record in a
55
in limine?
56
57
58
The amendment having been seconded, was put from the Chair.
Sir Robert Wilson
rose. He said, that the silence of ministers on the present occasion might be very dignified, but it would not satisfy the country. For himself, he would not forego the present opportunity of declaring, that should the bill of Pains and Penalties come into that House, there was no resistance—no obstacle—no impediment—which the wit of man could devise, or perseverance apply, that he would not make use of to stop its progress; not merely because the measure in its form was abominable, odious, and unconstitutional, but because he now conceived himself a competent judge of the merits of the whole proceeding. He had attended every day in the House of Lords—he had heard all the witnesses—he had listened to all that could be urged in their favour—he had observed the conduct of the judicial assembly, and he was prepared to assert on his oath—on his conscience before God—that these proceedings had originated in a foul and infamous conspiracy. These were hard terms, it was true; but it was his duty, on an occasion like this, to speak out, and not to allow the best interests of his country to suffer, lest he should give offence in any quarter. He could adduce proof, that the conspiracy originated, not at Milan, but at Hanover. Could any man doubt that when it was found that baron Ompteda, after having executed the instructions which he had received, to pick-locks, to forge keys, and to steal letters, and after
59
l
l
l
60
Dr. Phillimore
had long ago made up his mind not to say a single word on the merits of the subject, until the bill should come regularly before the House. What he now rose for, therefore, was, merely to make a few collateral and explanatory observations. The gallant general, and the honourable gentleman who preceded him, had violated the distinct understanding which existed on the subject, by entering into an
ex-parte
ex-parte
61
Mr. Bennet
said, he was desirous of an opportunity of stating, that his original opinion was in no respect changed by what had recently transpired in the House of Lords. All men, he thought, must now feel, that day after day new and increasing dangers were impending over the country by a perseverance in this measure, and that there was no safety but in retreat. For years ministers had pursued the same system of bringing into odium and contempt the institutions of the country. Their last effort was the bill now before parliament, and its introduction would be regretted, by all who loved their country, to the latest hour of their existence. Whether the bill should pass or not, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Sovereign, all would be degraded. He had heard the prime minister state in the other House of Parliament, that if it were wished by religious persons, the divorce clause in the bill would be abandoned. That would be to degrade both the parties. It would be to state, that although her majesty's conduct had been too infamous to justify her continuance in that rank, it had not been too infamous to justify her remaining the wife of the King of England [Hear, hear!]. The hon. and learned gentleman, who had just sat down, had said, that his gallant friend's statement was an
ex-parte
ex-parte
62
63
64
65
The Attorney General
, notwithstanding the tone and temper which had distinguished the speeches of those hon. gentlemen on the other side who had addressed the House on this occasion, should not be tempted to follow the course which they had taken. For what did they do? They were aware that they were now discussing a proceeding which was pending in the other House; yet they came down to the House, and gave their opinions upon that proceeding, and endeavoured—(he must be permitted to say, at least, that such was calculated to be the effect of their speeches)—by statements of what had, and not only of what had, but of what had not passed in the other House, to inflame the minds of the people upon the subject. He, for one, would not follow the example which the honourable gentlemen had set; but he might be allowed to say a word or two respecting certain expressions which had fallen from an honourable member opposite, as directed against him, and as reflecting on the manner in which he, as attorney-general, had opened the case, and produced evidence to support it. It had been said that the course and conduct pursued by him had been disgraceful, Whatever hon. gentlemen might please to say, he should content himself with replying, that it would have been disgraceful in him if he had shrunk from that line of conduct which he had pursued. It would be seen hereafter whether the proceedings which had been taken against the Queen were or were not justified; but he could assure the House, that, in their present stage, he should consider himself infinitely more disgraced if the approbation of the honourable member had been bestowed on his conduct.
Mr. Hume
said, it had not been his intention to trouble the House on the present occasion, but feeling strongly on the question, he hoped he might be allowed to make some observations after what had been said. An honourable and learned gentleman had thought fit to complain of the conduct of the gallant officer, for bringing the subject before the House in the way he had done. He would ask, for what was the House now assembled? What was the purpose for which they had met? What was the object of the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer's motion now before the House? The object and the purpose were known to every person, both in and out of parliament. Was his gallant friend to be blamed for speaking
66
ex-parte
ex-parte
ex parte
ex-parte
67
68
ex-parte
69
70
71
72
73
74
Lord Castlereagh
said, that after the turn which the debate had taken, he should not find it necessary to trouble the House with many words. But there were some situations in which discussions were brought forward upon grounds so little reasonable, and arguments adduced so foreign to the business properly before the House, and which, in his own mind, he might feel, could never have any influence in it, that he found it impossible not to offer some observations, however repugnant to his feelings it might be to be thus dragged into a debate of this kind. He was quite sure that the good sense of the House must be disgusted at finding that they were now occupied upon a debate on a proceeding still pending in the other House; that the character of that House, and with it every thing connected with one of the most important measures ever agitated there, were thus unnecessarily dragged into a discussion; and that, in the judicial spirit in which an hon. member on the other side of the House had spoken, his impartiality and his penetration appeared to be summed up in this charge—that one of her majesty's counsel had been shamefully browbeaten by the House of Lords! This might furnish the House, he thought, with a true measure of the temper in which all the other observations they had heard had been made. So far from having any effect, indeed, with hon. gentlemen, or any way degrading the illustrious assembly in question, they could only serve to show that there were persons in the country of minds and views so perverted as to prompt them to attack the high character of an assembly which their attack could not reach. He had been very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Westminster assume (which he had no right to assume), that that House had already decided that it would not make any inquiry into the subject before them. That was a point which had never been decided. He (lord Castlereagh) certainly had proposed to bring the question to an issue; but hon. gentlemen would remember the steps which it had been at length agreed to take. Fore-
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Mr. Maberly
said, he should not assert that the whole of the proceedings against the Queen originated in a foul conspiracy; nor did he rise to insult the nice honour of the attorney-general by making any comments on the speeches of the counsel; but he felt himself called upon to give the reasons why he supported the motion of the honourable member for Westminster. He had formerly had the pleasure (and he could sincerely say it was a pleasure) to vote with the noble lord Castlereagh, in the majority which declared, on the 22nd of June last, that the proceedings against the Queen, whatever the result of them might be, could not be otherwise than derogatory from the honour of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country. He, therefore, now, in accordance with that resolution, and for the sake of maintaining his own consistency in what he conceived to be a correct opinion, should vote for the motion of the hon. member for Westminster. The noble lord had talked of the fear of public clamour, and had dealt out his monitions to that side of the House, in a very general and unwarrantable way. The noble lord should have confined his admonitions to those who needed them. He meant to do his duty, as fearlessly and as regardlessly of public clamour, as the noble lord; he would perform his duty to his constituents as honestly as the noble lord; but there necessarily was, in the judgment of every man, a public feeling that should have some weight with parliament, and it was manifest to every one that that opinion was now decidedly against the proceedings in the case of the Queen, and it was equally clear, that it was, in a great measure, founded on that vote in which he had concurred, and which he now wished the House to maintain. He had thus stated his reasons for the vote which he should give; he should have been able to avoid that necessity,
82
Mr. Creevey
said, that he also should state why he agreed with the honourable member for Westminster, in the amendment which he had moved. He could not agree that the proceedings which were now carrying on in the other House did not form a fit subject for discussion at that moment. He had known no public question that had ever arisen, of greater importance than whether the bill pending against her majesty should be allowed to proceed? and he knew no other mode of bringing that question into discussion, and getting an opinion on it than by such, a motion as that of the honourable member for Westminster. On a former occasion, when the noble lord, the member for Cambridgeshire had made a similar proposition, he had determined to support it; but the counsel for the Queen had said, that it would be a great hardship if she were not allowed to go into her defence, and he had consequently withdrawn his support from that motion. But the fact was, as it now appeared, that though the whole of the case against the Queen was gone through, the injuries she had suffered were so great, that the evidence against her went, in the opinion of the public, for nothing. The people had seen the Queen charged With a crime that was no crime by law; menaced with an act which was at once to make the
83
84
85
Mr. Peter Moore
said, he should state his reasons for supporting the amendment, as well on account of the importance of the subject, as because, from his having attended a great number of public meetings, he had a better opportunity than many members of knowing what the public opinion was. He now lamented, that the motion of the noble lord the member for Cambridgeshire (lord F. Osborne) on a former occasion, had not been carried into effect. The objection that was then made to the motion was, that as the evidence had begun, it was fit it should be carried through. He had not thought that argument conclusive, and he should vote for the amendment of the honourable member for Westminster on the present occasion; and in doing so, he should be acting in unison with his constituents, who had had a meeting on the subject, and had instructed him to resist ever step of this inquiry. The noble lord's objection appeared the least of all objections on the subject. The noble lord had contended, that public justice required that an inquiry of this nefarious character (for it was nefarious) should be further continued. But a day of reckoning would come, and it was not far distant. He had given the subject every possible consideration—he had looked at every pretence on which it had been brought forward—he had weighed all the evidence and his solemn conviction was, that this was as dark and foul a conspiracy as had ever been formed, and that his majesty's ministers were at the bottom of it. He would not mince it. He repeated, that it was as foul a conspiracy as had ever been formed, and that his majesty's ministers were at the bottom of it. He had reflected on the state of the public mind; and there was but one opinion as to the necessity of rescuing the
86
87
88
Mr. Ellice
said, he was under the necessity of differing from his honourable colleague on the subject of the proposed amendment. If he could think it consistent with any principle of justice, or if he could persuade himself that it would have the effect of limiting the calamitous consequences which every day became more apparent, he should readily sacrifice his own opinion to that of his honourable friend. But as he did not think it likely that the amendment would be carried, he must frankly say, that he saw no reason to concur with it. The evidence against the illustrious person in question had gone forth to the public, accompanied by the statement, summing up, and comments of the law-officers of the Crown. To him it appeared that it would be gross injustice not to allow her majesty the opportunity of rebutting it, and of proving what had been asserted, that the charges were the offspring of a foul conspiracy. Upon these grounds, he felt obliged to vote against the proposition for now putting an end to the inquiry, although it would give him extreme satisfaction to support any motion that could stop the further proceedings, if that measure was not at the same time an act of injustice towards the illustrious person accused. He would also state his determination, if the bill should unfortunately come down to that House, to oppose the first reading of it, on the principle, that bills of such a description ought never to be entertained, except in cases where the were essential to the public safety.
Sir M. W. Ridley
expressed his concurrence in the views stated by his honourable friend who had just set down; but he rose for the purpose of putting a question to his majesty's ministers, which in his opinion was of importance both to the character and dignity of the government. He had observed in a report of what had passed at a recent meeting held at the Crown and Anchor, that an honourable baronet (sir G. Noel), who presided on that occasion, had read a letter from a worthy alderman (Wood), in which it was said that the defence of the Queen had been left short by the want of pecu-
89
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was perfectly prepared to give the honourable baronet a distinct official answer to the question which he had put. He could assure him, in the first place, that every sum for which application had been made by the Queen's legal advisers had been advanced, with an intimation from the Treasury, that if any further sums were deemed necessary they would be cheerfully furnished, subject only to such an account as the legal advisers of the Queen should be able to render.
Sir M. W. Ridley
asked, what was the actual sum advanced on account of the defence?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that the whole amount of what had been advanced was 20,000
l
l
Mr. Hume
wished to know how many days had elapsed between the application for the second sum, and its actual advance?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that no further time had elapsed than was strictly in accordance with the forms of office.
Mr. S. C. Whitbread
wished to state, in a very few words, the reasons which induced him to support a motion which had for its object an immediate abandonment of the proceedings against her majesty. In his opinion, the calamitous consequences which they had a tendency to produce, and were really producing, became more obvious every day. He had never indeed been able to discover what beneficial end was to be answered by them. It was said, that the subject had been taken up out of a regard to public morals; but who would say that public morals would not have been more respected by a suppression of the inquiry,
90
Mr. Lennard
felt it his duty to protest against the doctrine of the noble lord that it was improper for this House to interfere with the proceedings of the House of Lords. He was surprised to hear such an opinion expressed by any member of the House of Commons. If there was one right better established than another, it was the right, he should rather call it the duty, of the House of Commons to check and to control the House of Lords, when it was assuming to itself any dangerous or unconstitutional power. This was a right repeatedly exercised by this House. In the time of Charles the Second, when the House of Lords attempted to exercise, in the case of Skinner against the East India Company,
*
*
91
Sir Gerard Noel
declared that he could not reconcile it to his feelings to give quite a silent vote upon this question. He believed that the bill under consideration was altogether without a precedent since the period of the Revolution. The House of Lords had never since that period assumed the kind of jurisdiction which they were now exercising. He had heard with much pleasure the sentiments expressed by many honourable members, and was confirmed in his resolution of opposing the bill in all its stages.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, he was originally of the opinion expressed in the resolution of the House of the 22nd of June last, that the discussion of this affair of the Queen must, in any result, be injurious to the best interests of all the parties. Every thing had since concurred to strengthen this opinion, and to show the impolicy of suspending the business of a great country, on account of the conduct of an individual, and a subject, however exalted in rank. It would not, however, now be fair to stop the proceedings until both sides had been heard in the House of Peers. When that had taken place would be the proper time to pause and consider what course it was best to pursue. In the mean time the honourable alderman deprecated the unconstitutional language used on behalf of the Queen, to induce the army to interfere in political questions—language which, in former times, would have called forth the notice of all who valued the constitution. He called upon every one professing to love freedom to pause before be used, or countenanced even by his
92
Mr. Keith Douglas
observed, that the consternation and dismay which had been represented as now prevailing were, in in his opinion, to be ascribed rather to the influence of the press than to the extent of our military establishments. He took a view of our danger somewhat different from that entertained by the worthy alderman who preceded him. Every one who wished well to the prosperity of the country must lament to see the public press so mischievously, so ably, and so successfully labouring, in a way that was not adequately resisted, to inflame discontent, and to increase public alarm. He thought it would be improper for parliament to separate without an understanding that his majesty's ministers had some measures in contemplation for correcting the licence of the press [A loud cry of "Hear hear!" from the Opposition benches]. He might be imperfectly expressing what he meant, but he did see in the evil of which he complained a danger truly alarming. It was far from his wish that the liberties of the country should be curtailed; but the question was, whether some remedy ought not to be applied to a great evil? The case of the Queen was one subject of consideration; but it was brought into connexion with various others, by the journals and publications of the day. The press had assumed a new character; it was conducted with unusual ability, and was incessantly employed in propagating its doctrines. The consequences were evident; they found addresses presented of a new description, coming from large bodies not before accustomed to assemble together for such a purpose. As an instance, he might refer to the address lately carried up to the Queen by a great
93
Mr. Bernal
wished to make only three remarks. Did the hon. gentleman who spoke last consider that his majesty's ministers had not duly exercised the power entrusted to them, or did he wish them to produce a new edition of the late acts for regulating the press? If there was any danger in what was now going forward, the House of Lords had not shown any apprehension of it; the had imposed no restriction on the publication of the entire proceedings, and had suffered evidence to go forth to the world, which must necessarily have the effect of casting a slur upon the Queen's character. That House would do well to cherish the liberty of the press, and not allow it to be cut down in a by-way. If it was conducted with superior industry and talent, that was an additional reason for pardoning its occasional licence.
Mr. Hobhouse
observed, that although as a young member he felt diffident in pressing the House to a division, yet the question appeared to him to be so important, that he was placed under the necessity of exercising his right.
The House then divided—For the amendment, 12; against it 66. Majority for the original motion, 54.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, H. G.
Bernal, R.
94
Coke, T. W.
Osborne, Lord F.
Creevey, Thos.
Palmer, C. F.
Hughes, Colonel
Whitbread, S.
Maberly, J. sen.
TELLERS.
Martin, John
Hobhouse, J. C.
Moore, P.
Wilson, Sir. R.
Noel, Sir G.
Sir Robert Wilson
, seeing the noble lord opposite in his place, was extremely anxious to ask him a question of some importance, to which he hoped the noble lord would have no objection to return an answer. In doing this, it was necessary for him to state to the noble lord, that a man of the name of Krous had been employed by the Milan commission, as an extra courier (not as the courier of the government), and had, in that capacity, been frequently sent from Milan, on different matters connected with the business of the commission. In proceeding to England, it was understood that this person was arrested in Paris, on the charge of having forged Bank of England notes in his possession to the amount of 310
l
Lord Castlereagh
said, though he was not able to answer the gallant general's question to its fullest extent, he was happy in having an opportunity of stating what he knew of this business—a statement which he conceived to be due to the individual mentioned. Under the circumstances of the case, his answer
95
Mr. Whitbread
rose, in conformity with the notice he had given in the early part of the evening, to move, that an account of the sums expended in the prosecution of the Queen be laid on the table, from the earliest period of the six years, when the proceedings were first instituted, down to the present time. At any other period he would have given the notice usual on such occasions; but the peculiar circumstances under which the House had assembled prevented him from adopting that course. Besides, he conceived that not the least opposition could be made to the motion. He was induced to call for this account, in consequence of many reports that had gone abroad, as well as of many statements which had come out in the course of the evidence (with all of which they were acquainted), from which it appeared that some of the witnesses ac-
96
Lord Castlereagh
said, if the hon. gentleman had intimated to the House that he merely wished for a statement of the general amount of the public expenditure connected with this matter, although he (lord C.) might consider it not prudent to call for such an account, still he felt that it was one which might have been granted; but certainly, the motion, as it now stood, was extremely unsatisfactory, because the hon. member had not called on the House for a short statement of the expenses incurred by the whole of the proceedings, both those that were necessary in supporting the bill, and those that were called for in opposing it. The hon. gentleman had called for a detailed account, on one aide, for the purpose of examining adversely, and criminally, if he pleased, any part of that expenditure which he thought proper. Now, to whatever point the House might hereafter deem it necessary to extend its inquiries, he thought that the present was not a moment for the introduction of an exami-
97
Mr. Whitbread
said, he had stated that he was induced to make this motion in J consequence of an account that had been applied for in another House, relative to the expenses incurred on the part of the Queen, which they all knew must be a mere trifle when compared with the sum expended in support of the bill. If this were not a proper and convenient time to ask for an account of the sums issued in supporting the bill, he could not imagine how it could be a proper and convenient time for granting an account of the expense incurred in defending the Queen.
Lord Castlercagh
said, he had no objection to laying the gross amount of the expenditure on the table of the House; but he believed it was not the intention of the hon. member to enter into the question of the general expenditure, but, as he understood him, to examine the expenditure in detail, and to object to some part of it. He would not press the previous question, but move for an account of the gross expenditure, as far as the same can be made up.
98
Mr. Bennet
wished to ask the noble lord from what fund these sums of money had been drawn. The noble lord had said, on a former occasion, that the duke of Cornwall had a right to inquire into the conduct of his wife. Now, if he had a right to inquire into the conduct of the duchess of Cornwall, he (Mr. B.) conceived he had also a right to pay the expenses. He hoped the right hon. gentleman, or the noble lord would inform the House from what fund, whether large or small, the expenses of this inquiry were to be paid?
Lord Castlereagh
said, that the expenses which had been incurred abroad were properly charged out of the secret-service money; but from the moment the investigation assumed the character of a public inquiry, it would be charged among the civil contingencies. His majesty's ministers were prepared to submit all the items charged out of the secret-service money to the same audit as every other part of the expenditure.
Mr. Hume
said, it was fresh in his recollection, when the vote for secret-service money was last before that House, that he put a question to the noble lord, having at that time in his mind the expenditure of the Milan commission. He had stated the great amount of the vote demanded, and the answer he had received, to the best of his remembrance, was this—the noble lord had said that the House must be aware that, during a long war, expenses would be incurred, chargeable on the secret-service money, which would not end at the termination of hostilities, but must be provided for during some time after. From this answer, he did not think that any part of the secret service money could be intended for the Milan commission; because the question was expressly put, in order to ascertain whether it was possible for his majesty's government, consistently with their oath, to take sums out of that fund for such a service? Now, however, to his utter astonishment, he found that they did make use of apart of that money, notwithstanding their oath, to effect this dirty purpose.
Lord Castlereagh
said, if he recollected rightly, the hon. member had asked him a question as to the gross amount of such secret-service money for the year. He had observed, "Why, as you are now at peace, is there a necessity to call on parliament for so large a sum on account of secret services?" and he (lord C.)
99
l
l
Mr. Maberly
said, he was desirous to know, as the noble lord had stated that one part of the proceeding was to be defrayed out of the secret-service money, from what fund his majesty's ministers intended to pay the residue of the expense? There had been no grant made by parliament, and be knew not from what fund he could take that money.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that after the period had elapsed when the expenses had ceased to be defrayed from the secret-service money, bills had been drawn by the commission abroad, and answered by the foreign office. They would of course be sanctioned by the Treasury.
Mr. Maberly
replied, that this was a most dangerous mode of proceeding, and contrary to the usage of that House. If ministers had a right to take 1,000
l
l
Mr. Huskisson
observed, that the proceeding in this case was of the same nature as what took place with respect to the army extraordinancs. They consisted of items which had not been foreseen, and could not therefore be made matter of estimate in the first instance. The mode pursued was, to take a vote for a certain sum; and, in the next session of parlia-
100
Mr. Creevey
said, there was a difference between the explanation by the noble lord and that which had been offered by the right hon. gentleman. The former had pointed to the secret-service money as the fund from whence the expenses were to be defrayed; while, the latter spoke of the civil contingencies. Be that, however, as it might, it was clear that, if the money were to be granted out of any public fund, ministers ought to come with some proposition to parliament on the subject. He was sure that the noble lord's construction of the act by which the secret-service money was regulated was not correct. If it were, if ministers could take such sums of money as those that had been mentioned, from that fund, under the plea that this proceeding came within the meaning of secret service, the most dangerous consequences might follow. If, when his majesty chose to follow his wife abroad, and to make efforts to procure evidence against her, such a proceeding, could be supposed to come under the act, as one, the expenses of which should be defrayed out of the secret-service money, it was time that the act should be revised, and that some means should be devised by parliament to prevent such an abuse of that fund. With respect to his hon. friend's motion, of course, he would only be able to procure the gross amount of the expenditure. But here he might be allowed to observe that, if the bill did not come to this House, it would then be a mere private business; there would be no claim whatever on that House to make good the expense. What then would ministers do? The only course left them would be, to apply to the king's private purse—a course which, he believed, they would not very readily pursue.
Mr. Bennet
wished to know, at what precise period the noble lord deemed the proceeding to be one to which secret-service money was no longer applicable.
101
Lord Castlereagh
said, the proceeding became of a public nature from the time the message was sent down to both Houses of Parliament. The sums taken from the fund for secret service would be laid before parliament in the same manner as the expenses incurred for the defence of her majesty.
Mr. Hume
wished to know whether the Milan commission had acted from the outset under the sanction and with the approbation of his majesty's government?
Lord Castlereagh
said, it had the full knowledge and approbation of his majesty's ministers from the beginning. It was adopted in order to prepare for carrying on the proceeding in its present form, if the charges were gravely supported; and, on the other hand to set the matter at rest if they were found to rest on no solid foundation.
Sir Gerard Noel
said, his decided opinion was, that the House would act criminally, if it consented to burthen the public with one shilling of the expense.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he was ready to agree to a motion for an account of the expenses incurred on both sides in the proceeding now pending against the Queen, as far as the same could be made out.
Mr. Whitbread
accordingly withdrew his motion, and the motion suggested by lord Castlereagh was put and agreed to.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES—PETITION FROM MONTROSE.]
Mr. Hume
rose, to present a petition from the burgh of Montrose deprecating the proceedings that were now in progress against her majesty. He could not avoid expressing his surprise at the observations of an hon. gentleman (Mr. K. Douglas), who, in the course of his speech, had called on his majesty's ministers to devise some means by which the liberty of the press might be checked, and by which the demonstration of public feeling, manifested at different meetings convened for the purpose of addressing her majesty, might be prevented. The respectable body whose petition he held in his hand, had met, and had addressed her majesty; and honourable members had not, he conceived, any right to condemn them or others for pursuing that line of conduct. In his opinion, those who assembled on such an occasion, to express their feelings, deserved praise instead of censure; they acted in an open and honourable manner, and he trusted
102
103
ex post facto
Mr. Keith Douglas
said, in explanation, that the hon. gentleman must have entirely mistaken what he had said. He had never complained of the proper expression of the public feelings, nor of the constitutional exercise of the liberty of the press—he had merely said, that he thought the press was now exercised in an undue manner, and for a purpose which seemed as if it was intended to intimidate parliament and the country from adopting any measure which partook of a particular character. To attempt such intimidation, pending the agitation of a great public question, was, he thought highly unconstitutional. For his own part, he thought it right, as a member of parliament, to say, that no undue influence should deter him from the strict discharge of his public duty. With respect to the mode of presenting the addresses to which he alluded, he meant merely to say, that it was very unusual to assemble the people in such numbers to go up in bodies with addresses. The appearance of such crowds was certainly alarming.
Mr. Huskinson
rose, to give some explanation respecting that part of the hon. gentleman's speech in which he stated that the person who was lately the editor of the Courier had received a present of
104
Mr. Hume
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the right hon.
105
Mr. Huskisson
replied, certainly not.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
PORTUGAL.]
Mr. Hume
begged to put a question to the noble lord opposite, on the subject of the affairs of Portugal. Rumours were prevalent out of doors, that a large armament was about to be sent out from this country to Portugal, and that additional corps of yeomanry and militia were to be immediately provided to do the duty of the regular troops, who were to be called upon foreign service. These steps were, it was said, to be taken in consequence of the recent political occurrences in Portugal; and the effect of the rumour was to be seen in the depression and fluctuation of the funds. It was for the purpose of removing this alarm that he rose to ask the noble lord, whether he had any official information from Portugal respecting the recent events to which he alluded; and whether there was any ground for the alarm which was felt in the monied market?
Lord Castlereagh
thought it not quite regular, upon the prevalence of such rumours as those to which the hon. gentleman alluded, to put formal questions to his majesty's ministers. To encourage such questions would, he thought, tend more to perplex the business of the country, than to assist its course. It was most unreasonable to ask him to pronounce any opinion upon transactions respecting which he had at present hardly any information. He trusted the hon. gentleman would deem this n sufficient answer, in the absence of any official information upon the subject.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.]
Mr. Brogden
brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to inspect the Lords Journals, with relation to the present state of any proceedings had respecting the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty. The report having been read,
Lord Castlereagh
106
Mr. Hume
asked, whether the noble lord had received any communication as to the probable extent of the defence for the Queen, or what time it was likely to occupy? Because, if the noble lord had had no such information, he might be proposing to assemble the House to no purpose, but merely that of a further adjournment.
Lord Castlereagh
observed, that he wished the House to be left open for the exercise of its own discretion as to the period of any farther adjournment. If the bill of Pains and Penalties should be brought down from the other House, it was his present intention to move a further adjournment to the 5th or 10th of November, and that the House should be then called over.
Mr. Hume
repeated, that the more distant period would be the more advisable, because it would be more certain.
Lord Castlereagh
still thought a previous meeting advisable to fix the precise time of taking the discussion which they could on the 17th better determine than now. This was a proceeding of too much delicacy to be left standing over; they ought, therefore, to watch its progress, and then determine, should the bill come before them, the earliest possible time when they could devote themselves to it.
Sir Gerard Noel
could not think what the noble lord meant when he talked of delicacy in this business. Surely he did not mean to say that his majesty's ministers had treated the House with delicacy. On the contrary they had treated the House' just as a huntsman did a pack of hounds—they turned them out, and whipped them in, just as they wanted them.
Lord Francis Osborne
begged for some explanation from the noble lord opposite
107
Lord Castlereagh
regretted his inability to enter into the legal construction of the statute of Edward with the noble lord, but he thought it obvious that the bill, as at present framed, had two purposes—the one affecting her majesty's rights as Queen and the other enacting a divorce. What he understood his noble friend (the earl of Liverpool) to have stated elsewhere was this—that there was no intention whatever of acting in opposition to any religious feeling which might be excited; and that the part of the bill which went to the divorce need not be pressed, as the measure was disclaimed for the purpose of affording any personal remedy. Upon public and not upon personal grounds its
108
Adjourned till Tuesday the 17th of October.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, October 3, 1820.
Their lordships met, pursuant to adjournment, and the House was called over.
COLONEL BROWNE AND M. MARRIETTI.]
The Earl of Liverpool
rose. He observed, that he felt it his duty to offer some explanation respecting a transaction upon which a good deal of conversation had taken place when they last met on this case. He alluded to a conversation respecting a letter which was stated to have been addressed to a Mr. Marrietti in this country, from his father at Milan. When the subject was mentioned at the period to which he alluded, he stated that he had been privately informed of the existence of this letter, and of the nature of its contents. Upon receiving that information, he had felt it his duty to desire that a letter should be written to colonel Browne, calling upon him to explain any thing which he might know of the circumstance. He had now in his possession a correspondence which had taken place in consequence of the compliance with his desire, which, with the permission of the House he would read.—[The noble earl then proceeded to read the correspondence which is inserted below.] The noble earl having finished the reading of the papers, said he had felt it his duty to submit them to the House, lest any doubt might arise as to any point in this transaction calculated to excite an undue impression. From their contents it would be seen that colonel Browne was so far conscious that he had acted consistently with his duty, that he courted any further explanation or investigation into his conduct that their lordships might think necessary. The papers he held in his hand, might, if it was their lordships pleasure, be laid on the table.
Lord Holland
said, that supposing every part of the assertions contained in the correspondence was true, and that nothing
109
ex parte
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, he should now feel it his duty to lay the papers on the table of the House.
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought the House ought to be put in possession of the original letter of the elder Mr. Marrietti.
The Papers were then laid on the table. The following are Copies of the said Papers:
Letter from Lieutenant Colonel Browne with three Inclosures.
COPY of a Letter from Lieutenant Colonel Browne to the Earl of Clanwilliam, dated Milan, September 20th, 1820; explanatory of the allusions made to the name of Lieut. Colonel Browne in Mr. Marrietti's letter to his son, with three inclosures.
Milan, 20th Sept. 1820.
My lord;—I have received your lordships letter of the 5th inst. written to me by direction of viscount Castlereagh.
Perhaps the best reply I could make to its contents would be, that I had never spoken one syllable to the father of Mr. Joseph Marrietti on the subject of his son's conduct in London.
I remember, however, that some time since one of the clerks of the respectable banking-house of which Mr. Marrietti is the head, having called upon me to settle some accounts, I mentioned to him my having heard from London that the younger Marrietti had visited Mr. Sacchini, and had made inquiries into the nature of the evidence he had
110
I made this remark with so much indifference, and, in fact, considered the affair of so little importance, that it never again entered my thoughts. In consequence, however, of your lordship's letter, I wrote immediately to Mr. Albertoni (the name of the clerk to whom I thus casually mentioned the matter) a letter of which the inclosure No. I is a copy, and received from him an instant reply, of which No. 2 is the original.
Mr. Marrietti himself, the father of the young man in question, on learning the interpretation that had been given to the letter which he had written in confidence to his son addressed to me the letter of which No. 3 is also the original.
I trust, when these papers shall have been submitted by your lordship to his majesty's government. I shall stand acquitted of having so far forgotten my situation and character, as to have ventured an unauthorized and powerless menace against a respectable individual under their protection, the employment of which would not only have been decidedly contrary to the spirit and letter of my instructions, but injurious to the interests of justice itself, before whose tribunal I shall be ever forward to render the strictest account of the delicate and painful duly which has been confided to me. I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) J. H. BROWNE.
The Right hon. the Earl of
Clanwilliam, &c. &c. &c.
No. I.—TRANSLATION of a Letter from Colonel Browne to Mr. Albertoni.
Milan, 17th Sept. 1820.
Sir—A letter written by Mr. Marrietti to his son, who is in London, seems to have created a belief that I had so far forgotten my duty and character as to have threatened the latter with being placed under the surveillance of the British police, and even with an intention on the part of the British government to compel him to quit England under the operation of the Alien bill, in consequence of some communications which he had with M. Sacchini, a witness against the Queen.
Having never conversed with Mr. Marrietti, his father, on this subject, nor with any one, except yourself one morning when you were at my house settling some accounts, I beg you will have the goodness to declare to me, explicitly and by letter, all you can recollect on this subject, and to detail it as truly and fairly as possible.—Accept, &c.
(Signed) J. H. BROWNE.
To Mr. Albertoni, at Messrs. Marrietti, brothers, bankers, Milan.
111
No. II.—TRANSLATION of a Letter from M. Albertoni to Lieutenant Colonel Browne.
Milan, Sept. 17, 1820.
Sir—It is with regret equal to the respect which I feel towards you, that I have just learnt that the meaning of a letter written by M. Marrietti to his son has been so misunderstood as to cause to be imputed to you the communication of an intention on the part of the British government to place the latter under surveillance, or to order him to quit England, on account of some conversations he had held with Mr. Sacchini, a witness against the Queen.
I recollect your having told me one morning, when I happened to call upon you on business, that you had heard from England that our M. Joseph Marrietti had interfered in this affair, and that you could not but consider such conduct as indiscreet, and foreign to his business in London. I well remember that I considered this communication to be simply your own private opinion, and far from being an expression from authority or a menace. As to what has been asserted with regard to the Alien bill, the provisions of which are wholly Unknown to me, it is a duty I owe to your open and honourable character upon all occasions, to declare explicitly that you have never given me the slightest reason to be apprehensive for the personal safety or protection of our Mr. Joseph Marrietti. I ought to add, that I have thought it my duty to beg the father of the said J. Marrietti to write to his son, and advise him not to interfere in an affair so unconnected with his occupations, and to observe that wise and discreet line of conduct for which he has ever been distinguished. If in writing to him his father made use of strong expressions, it is not to you, Sir, that they are to be attributed, but to that confidence and paternal affection alone by which they were dictated—Pray accept the sentiments of esteem with which, &c.
(Signed) ALBERTONI, of the House of P. and J. Marrietti.
No. III.—TRANSLATION of a Letter from M. Marrietti to Lieutenant Colonel Browne.
Milan, 19th Sept. 1820.
Most esteemed Colonel—I have heard with particular regret that your name has been compromised on the subject of a conversation which has been supposed to have taken place between you and me relating to my son Joseph, at present in London; I therefore consider it my duty to declare, as I do declare upon my honour, that no conversation ever took place between you and me directly upon such subject.
If the expressions contained in my letter to my son be rather strong, it is to be attributed to my wish that a lively impression should be made upon him by advice on my part, tending to prove to him the necessity of his adhering to the system pursued by myself,
112
LUIGI MARRIETTI.
To Lieut. Colonel Browne, &c. &c.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.]
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; Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Mr. Brougham, the Attorney-General of the Queen, opened the
DEFENCE OF HER MAJESTY.
Mr. Brougham
—
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
* See Vol. 2, p. 742.
120
"almost"
* See Vol. 2, p. 743.
† See Vol. 2, p. 747.
121
122
* See Vol. 2, p. 749.
123
*
*
*
† See Vol. 2. p. 788.
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Officina
131
have not
Sunt in illo numero multi boni, docti, pudentes, qui ad hoc judicium deducti non sunt; multi impudentes, illiterati, leves; quos, variis de causis, video concitatos. Varum tamen hoc dico de toto genere Grœcorum; quibus jusjurandum jocus est; testimonium Indus; existimatio vestra tenebrœ laus, merces, gratia, gratulatio proposita est omnis in impudenti mendacio.
132
133
contubernium
Docti
134
Censemus, judicamus,
Doctissimi Doctores
illiterati et impudentes
prima facie,
135
136
137
*
*
138
Non mi ricordo;
*
* see Vol. 2, p. 841.
139
*
140
non mi ricordo
*
*
141
142
143
144
145
V
lontano,
146
The Lord Chancellor
—In what page of the printed Minutes, Mr. Brougham?
Mr. Brougham
—In page 47, my lord.
The Earl of Liverpool
suggested, that the learned gentleman, when he quoted from the printed Minutes of Evidence, should specify the folio.
Mr. Brougham
proceeded—I asked him, "Have you ever seen the Villa d'Este since the time you came back from the long voyage? He had been examined in chief upon this, and had stated distinctly, with respect to the Villa d'Este, the state of the rooms, and I wanted to show the accuracy of his recollection on those parts where he was well drilled—" Have you ever seen the Villa d'Este since the time you came back from the long voyage? "I have."—Was the position of the rooms the same as it had been before with respect to the Queen and Bergami? "They were not in the same situation and before."—Then the witness gives a very minute particular of the alterations—a small corridor was on one side of the prin-
147
*
*
148
149
150
*
151
or any thing else."
or any thing else,
152
*
*
† Sec Vol. 2, p. 810.
153
154
155
Si, si,
"Non mi recordo"
"Non mi recordo"
156
*
non mi recordo.
*
157
l
l
l
l
158
naiveté,
l
l
l.
159
*
l.
*
†See Vol. 2, p. 895.
160
*
*
161
l
much
more
162
*
*
*
*
163
164
"potius arnica omnibus quamlibet inimica"
165
double enlendres:
166
"tribuo illis literas de multarum artium disciplinam, non adimo scrmonis leporem, ingeniorum acumen, dicendi capiam; denique eliam, si qua sibi alia sumunt non repuguo; testimoniroum religionem et fidem nunquam ista natio coluit; totiusque hujusce rei quœsit vis, quœauctoritas, quod pondus ignorant."
in rerum natur â,
double entendres,
167
double entendres
168
169
170
double entendres.
double entendres
double entendres
double entendre
171
double entendre.
*
say
wrote it?"
Litera scripta
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1287.
172
tumulto
*
*
173
174
*
*
175
176
177
178
Earl Grey
.—I would beg to ask whether the learned counsel is near concluding. If not, perhaps it might be desirable to adjourn now, the hour at which it was arranged the House should adjourn having arrived.
The Earl of Liverpool.
—It would certainly be desirable that we should keep, as nearly as is practicable to the time which was arranged—a quarter of an hour would not be an object; but that probably would not bring us to the conclusion of the learned counsel's address.
The Lord Chancellor
.—My lords, the counsel at the bar cannot possibly do justice to so important a case as this is, by binding himself to quarters of an hour, or half hours. As he is now beginning to comment on the testimony of another witness, this may be as convenient a time for stopping, as any other. I would therefore suggest that your lordships should now adjourn.
Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said bill be adjourned till to-morrow morning.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, October 4, 1820.
The order of the day being read for
179
Mr. Brougham
resumed—
all
180
181
*
182
183
belohnung,
entschadigung,
See Vol. 2,p. 977.
184
185
Non-constat
186
*
187
188
189
—"I have belied a lady,
The princess of this country, and the air on't
Revengingly enfeebles me.—
—Mine Italian brain
Can in your duller Britain operate
Most vilely; for my vantage, excellent;
And, to be brief, my practice so prevailed,
That I return'd with similar proof enough
To make the noble Leonatus mad."
190
191
192
193
194
*
*
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
"Et otiosa credidit Neapolis,
Et omne vicinum oppidum."
202
203
204
205
206
207
"Windsor Castle, Nov. 13th, 1804."
"My dearest Daughter-in-Law and Niece;—Yesterday I, and the rest of my family, had an interview with the prince of Wales at Kew. Care was taken on all sides to avoid all subjects of altercation or explanation, consequently the conversation was neither instructive nor entertaining; but it leaves the prince of Wales in a situation to show whether his desire to return to his family is only verbal or real,"—(a difference which George the 3rd never knew, except in others)—"which time alone can show. I am not idle in my endeavours to make inquiries, that may enable me to communicate some plan for the advantage of the dear child you and me with so much reason must interest ourselves; and its effecting my having the happiness of living more with you is no small incentative to my forming some ideas on the subject; but you may depend on their being not decided upon, without your thorough and cordial concurrence, for your authority as mother it is my object to support.
"Believe me, at all times,
"My dearest daughter-in-law and niece,
"Your most affectionate father-in-law and uncle,
"GEORGE
R."
This, my lords, was the opinion which this good man, not ignorant of human affairs, no ill judge of human character, had formed of this near and cherished relation, and upon which in the most delicate particulars, the care of his granddaughter and the heir of his crown, he honestly, really, and not in mere words, always acted.
I might now read to your lordships, a Letter from his illustrious successor, not written in the same tone of affection—not indicative of the same tone of regard—but by no means indicative of any want of confidence, or at least of any desire harshly to trammel his royal consort's conduct. I allude to a Letter which has been so often before your lordships in other shapes, that I may not think it necessary to repeat it here. It is a permission to live apart, and a desire never to come together again—the expression of an opinion, that their happiness was better consulted, and pursued asunder, and a
208
"Madam;
"As lord Cholmondeley informs me, that you wish I would define in writing, the terms upon which we are to live, I shall endeavour to explain myself upon that head with as much clearness and with as much propriety as the nature of the subject will admit. Our inclinations are not in our power, nor should either of us be held answerable to the other, because nature has not made us suitable to each other. Tranquil and comfortable society is, however, in our power; let our intercourse, therefore, be restricted to that, and I will distinctly subscribe to the condition which you required, through lady Cholmondeley, that even in the event of any accident happening to 'my daughter, which I trust Providence in its mercy will avert, I shall not infringe the terms of the restriction, by proposing at any period, a connexion of a more particular nature. I shall now finally close this disagreeable correspondence, trusting, that, as we have completely explained ourselves to each other, the rest of our lives will be passed in uninterrupted tranquillity. I am, Madam, with great truth,
"Very sincerely your's,
"GEORGE
P.
"Windsor Castle,
"April 30th, 1796."
My lords; I do not call this, as it has been termed, a Letter of Licence—this was the term applied to it, on the former occasion, by those who are now, unhappily for the Queen, no more—but I think it such an epistle as would make it matter of natural wonderment to the person who received it, that her conduct should ever after—and more especially the more rigorousty, the older the parties are growing—become the subject of the most unceasing, unscrupulous watching and investigation.
Such then, my lords, is this Case. And again let me call on your lordships, even at the risk of repetition, never to dismiss for a moment from
209
Such, my lords, is this Case now before
210
ex post facto
After a pause of a few minutes, Mr. Williams, of counsel for her majesty, presented himself to the attention of their lordships.
Lord Chancellor.
—What do you propose to do—to call witnesses—or what other course do you propose to take?
Mr. Denman.
—Perhaps, my lords, in the absence of my learned friend, your lordships will permit me to state, that Mr. Williams proposes to address your lordships, in support of the argument of our learned leader.
Lord Chancellor
.—My lords, I under-
211
Mr. Williams
then proceeded—
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
"Curramus præcipites, et
Dum jacet in ripa, calcemus Cæsaris hostem."
220
*
*
221
222
*
*
223
"Græculus esuriens, in cœlum jusseris, ibit;"
224
*
*
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 807.
225
*
*
226
*
confitentem reum.
*
227
228
*
*
non mi recordo
non mi recordo,
*
229
"Quæ regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?"
*
*
230
non mi ricordo
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1142.
231
*
dramatis personaœ,
*
232
double entendre
*
*
233
234
235
236
*
See Vol. 2, p. 1352.
237
238
239
240
*
*
241
242
*
non miricordo?
*
243
double entendre,
double entendre
double entendre
nominatim,
244
double entendre
*
double entendre.
*
†See Vol. 2, p. 1205.
245
neque rationem neque modum habet ullum
cum ratione insanire
felo de se,
246
*
†Mr. Williams here alluded to the speech made by Mr. Canning in the House of Commons on the 7th of June, which will be found in Vol. 1, p. 962.
247
vivâ voce
248
*
*
249
nisi prius
l.
nisi prius
nisi prius
250
dum tacent loquuntur
251
nisi prius,
252
253
telum imbelle sine ictu.
ex-concesso,
254
255
The Earl of Lauderdale.
—I wish counsel may withdraw. My lords, as Mr. Williams is going now to state what he means the witnesses to prove, and it is four o'clock, perhaps it will be best to stop him at this period.
Ordered, That the further consideration and second reading of the said Bill be adjourned till to-morrow morning ten o'clock.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, October 5, 1820.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS—REVOLUTION IN
—
Lord Holland
said, that before the counsel were called in, he thought it necessary to ask the noble earl opposite a few questions on the subject of our foreign relations. Among the mass of papers on the table there was a treaty, by which the five great powers of Europe had formed themselves into a tribunal to judge of the conduct of other nations. They had established a sort of state policy, by which they were, on every emergency, forcibly to interfere in the
256
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he was perfectly willing to give his noble friend an answer, which he trusted, would be considered satisfactory: at the same time he thought it necessary to observe, that
257
Lord Holland
was happy to hear the explanation which had been given, so far as it went; but the noble earl had not fully answered his questions. The noble earl had alluded to a difference between the cases of Spain and Naples, in consequence of the division which appeared to subsist between the two members of the latter monarchy. He should be glad if the noble earl would inform him, whether he Considered the events which constituted
258
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had omitted to answer the noble lord's question respecting the relations between this country and Naples merely from oversight. It was well known that a gentleman of great respectability had for some time filled the situation of his majesty's minister to the king of the Two Sicilies. That gentleman was still at Naples, but not in the same character. He had no hesitation in stating, that since the late change took place at Naples no new letters of credence had been sent out to sir W. A'Court. The existing state of the government of Naples would sufficiently account for this; but the fact was, that, under the present circumstances, it had not been thought right to give any new letters of credence to his majesty's ministers at Naples.
Lord Holland
asked, whether the occurrence of such a revolution in a country like that of Naples was thought a sufficient reason for renewing letters of credence to an ambassador?
The Earl of Liverpool
did not mean to say that, under ordinary circumstances, when a revolution took place, new credentials should be given to the resident ambassador of this country. He had, however, no difficulty in informing their lordships, that, in the existing state of Naples, it had not been thought fit yet to give any new letters of credence, and none had been received from the government of that country.
Earl Grey
repeated the statement which he understood the noble earl to have made, and observed, that its result was, that the late accredited minister of Great Britain at Naples remained there in no official station. This, he must contend, was a suspension of the amicable relations between the two countries, which the events that had occurred at Naples did not justify. He had heard the declaration of the noble earl on this subject with great pain. He admitted that the division which subsisted between the two states which composed the Sicilian dominions constituted a difference between the revolutions of Spain and Naples; but that difference was not such as to make it right in this government to sus-
259
260
The Earl of Liverpool
thought it necessary to rise again to obviate any misunderstanding. He wished to repeat, that it was not the policy of this country, at this time, under present circumstances, to interfere with the internal concerns of any other country—that this country was no party, directly or indirectly, to any engagements of such a character, and had not, directly or indirectly, encouraged any measures of the nature alluded to on the part of other governments. This he stated most distinctly, with the reserve that he would not fetter the discretion of the government of this country by saying what course might thereafter be pursued under possible and eventual circumstances. All he desired was, that what he had stated might be taken in the terms in which he had stated it, and not in those in which others might describe it.
COLONEL BROWNE AND M. MARRIETI.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that having been the person who had first called the attention of their lordships to a letter of M. Marrietti, which seemed to indicate an attempt on the part of colonel Browne to interfere with the witnesses in the cause of the Queen, on the subject of which, papers had been laid before the House [See p. 109], he should have been sincerely happy to express his satisfaction at the explanation which had been given in the letters which the noble earl (Liverpool) had produced. Unfortunately, that was not in his power, as a letter had come into his possession at the same time that the noble earl had produced his explanation, which letter tended to throw a light on the proceedings very different from that which the noble earl's explanation had cast on them. That letter had been sent to him by a person with whom he had had no previous intimacy, and who bad given him no
261
262
lasciar anello,
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he perfectly agreed, that after the publication of the
263
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, there was contained in the letters no distinct denial that the Alien act had been referred to. M. Albertonio only said, he was ignorant of its provisions, and that the personal security of M. Marrietti had not been threatened. Colonel Browne did not say whether or no the Alien act had been alluded to; he denied that any threat had been used.
The Earl of Liverpool
wished all the letters to be put in; the first letter of M. Marrietti, in which the discussion originated, as well as the others.
The Clerk
of the House.—You are desired to look at those letters (handing to the witness the letters produced by the marquis of Lansdown). The witness took the letters into his hand.
The Marquis of Lansdown
.—Having looked at those letters, Mr. Marrietti, inform the House whether they are the original letters you have received from your father?—A. The first is an original letter written by my father to me, and is dated the 21st of August; I received it by post. The second is the 16th September; my father wrote it, and it was inclosed to me.
The Lord Chancellor
.—By post?—A. By post; but it was inclosed in another letter. The third is a copy of a letter written by my father to colonel Browne.
264
The Earl of Lauderdale
.—Are these in the hand-writing of your father?—A. They are.
The Marquis of Lansdown
.—Has Mr. Marrietti received any other letters on this subject from his father?—A. No.
The Lord Chancellor
.—Then be so good as to inform the House to-morrow whether you have or not.
Mr. Marrietti then withdrew.
BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES
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 Eliza-beth 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 Eliza-"beth;" and for hearing counsel for and against the same;
Counsel were accordingly called in. Then,
Mr. Williams
resumed his speech, and addressed their lordships as follows—
265
266
267
268
269
proved
270
271
272
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1116.
‡ See Vol. 2, p. 1211.
273
274
275
*
*
276
95,
*
277
278
279
280
281
*
*
282
283
*
*
284
*
*
285
*
286
*
287
succus et sanguis
288
289
O magna vis veritatis, qua contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, solerliam, contraque fictas omnium insidias, facile per se ipsam defendat!
290
291
second
first
Earl Grey
said, that before her majesty's counsel proceeded to call the witnesses for the defence, he wished to call the attention of their lordships to two statements which had been made by the learned counsel at the bar, and which he considered of so much importance, that he felt it his duty to submit to their lordships the propriety of calling upon the counsel to know whether they were now prepared to enter into the proof of those statements. Their lordships would anticipate that he alluded to the representations made by the coun-
292
*
*
293
The Earl of Liverpool
agreed entirely with the noble earl, that all they were doing in this case would be nothing more than a mockery of justice, if strict impartiality were not observed, as to the production of witnesses both on one side of the case, and on the other. Undoubtedly, whatever influence was exerted on one side ought to be equally applied to the
294
295
The Duke of Wellington
explained the practice which prevailed in the Austrian service with respect to the wearing of uniforms, and vindicated the motives which
296
Mr. Brougham
stated, that in the arrangement of the evidence he had not anticipated the calling evidence to this part of the Case so early in the proof, and that in consequence the witnesses who must prove a part of those particulars were still abroad; that he was prepared to put in the correspondence with Mr. Henry, who was at the head of her majesty's affairs at Milan, which was such as would enable any solicitor to make an affidavit in a common cause in a court of justice of his information and belief, but that he was prepared with more specific proof of the circumstances attending the absence of the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden. That he admitted the government of this country had offered to the legal advisers of her majesty all facilities in their power for the procuring the attendance of witnesses, but that her majesty's advisers were not satisfied how far the power of this government might go in procuring the attendance of witnesses against the bill; and that objections had been felt to stating, at a distance of time before their production, the names of the witnesses whom it was meant to call, in consequence of circumstances which it would be his duty to prove in the progress of his case.
Earl Grey
thought the fact of her majesty's counsel having omitted to make any application to his majesty's government, made a material difference in the view which he had taken of the circumstances. He now thought it unnecessary to enter immediately into this part of the case, unless, her majesty's counsel considered it material to her defence. The best course would be to inquire of the counsel whether they were of that opinion.
The Lord Chancellor
inquired of her majesty's counsel, whether they thought it material to proceed immediately with the circumstances respecting the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden?
297
Mr. Brougham
said, most unquestionably they were of that opinion. In addition to the reasons which he had already stated, for not applying to his majesty's government, there was another, and a most cogent reason, namely, that it was not above a day or two ago that they were aware of this insurmountable difficulty.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that in point of fact there was no charge against his majesty's ministers, either by the noble earl, or by the counsel at the bar. The learned counsel had thought fit to conclude, that the influence which had been successfully exerted in one instance, would not be effectual in another, but at all events he ought to have made the attempt. If he had clone this, and the attempt had been ineffectual, it would then have been time enough to have cast imputations upon the motives and conduct of ministers, but he had no right to assume that government would have refused assistance, when that assistance had never been required. Under these circumstances, he submitted to their lordships that there was no necessity for going into the examination of witnesses, with the view which had been suggested by the noble earl.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if the counsel at the bar thought it material to the defence of their client, to call witnesses at any part of the case, they ought to be allowed to do so. Whether they thought proper to examine witnesses upon a particular part of the case now or hereafter, was a point which he thought should be left entirely to their own discretion. At the same time he must take the liberty of saying, that though the examination of witnesses respecting the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden might be very material in many other respects, it could have no effect whatever with respect to a suspension of this proceeding. The want of power on the part of her majesty to compel the attendance of her witnesses would be a most important consideration, whenever they came to decide upon the merits of the case. Their lordships order operated upon witnesses in this country with all the force of a subpoena, but there were no means of compelling the attendance of a foreigner, except by the influence which government possessed with foreign powers. He must say, however, that no suspicion could possibly attach to the conduct of ministers, because the
298
Earl Grey
agreed with the noble and learned lord, that the circumstance of her majesty's counsel having omitted to make any application to government sufficiently exonerated his majesty's ministers from the charge of having in this instance obstructed her defence.
The Earl of Donoughmore
thought that their lordships ought not to pass over the charge which had been brought against his majesty's government by the counsel at the bar. The statement went so far as to say, that witnesses had been compelled by the executive power, to come in support of this bill, and that compulsion had been used by foreign powers, unresisted by our own government, to prevent witnesses from coming. Much of inflammation and misrepresentation had gone forth to prejudice the public mind, and he trusted their lordships would in future resist such conduct
in limine
Lord Holland
defended the conduct of the Queen's counsel, and contended, that his noble friend was not perfectly consistent when he complained of that conduct. The Queen's counsel complained that the arm of power had prevented them from producing their witnesses. It was not for the counsel to explain the motives which had led to the exercise of that power, or to show the source from which that arm of power had proceeded. In the discharge of their professional duty, the Queen's counsel had, in his opinion, conducted themselves ably, temperately, and properly; and if they had neglected to state any part of the evidence, which was material
299
The Lord-Chancellor
fully concurred with the noble lord, that the House should not enter into any altercation with the counsel at their lordships' bar. If any improper observations had been made by the counsel, he was bound to apologise to the House for not having interposed. But their lordships were aware of the duties which it fell to his lot to discharge, and how difficult it was to discharge them. He certainly could not see, that there had been any reason for interposing. It was not without great hazard that a judge could take upon himself to determine how far a certain line of observation was or was not material to the case of a counsel. In this instance, the counsel had argued, that under all the circumstances, they ought not to be called upon to produce evidence at all, and they urged the peculiar difficulties which they said, had been thrown in the way of
300
The Counsel were directed to proceed.
Then James Lemon
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Den-man, as follows:
Are you a clerk to Mr. Vizard, the solicitor for her majesty? I am.
Were you sent by her majesty to Carlsruhe? I was.
On what day did you leave England? On the 1st of September.
On what day did you arrive at Carlsruhe? On the 14th of September.
Were you provided with any letters from her majesty, addressed to any gentleman at Carlsruhe? I had a letter from her majesty, directed to the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden, the baron d'Ende.
Did you inform the chamberlain that he was required as a witness upon this proceeding? Yes, I did.
Do you recollect on what day that was? It was on the 17th that I first saw him.
Did you on that day make that communication to him? I did.
Did you take his deposition with a view to instruct the counsel for her majesty to examine him at the bar of this House? The chamberlain of the grand duke keeps minutes of the transactions of every day; those minutes were at Baden: it was at Carlsruhe I saw him: the first time I saw him was on the road between Carlsruhe and Baden; I met him.
You first saw him on the 17th, on the road between Carlsruhe and Baden? I did; I informed him that the object of my coming
301
Did you at any time take his examination for the purpose of instructions to counsel? On the 20th.
Do you know whether he then had an opportunity of consulting his minutes? Yes, he had; his minutes were at Baden, and he consulted them while I was by.
You took that deposition at Baden? I did.
That was on the 20th of September? It was.
Do you know whether the grand duke was at that time at Carlsruhe? I know he was absent.
When did he return to Carlsruhe? On the 21st.
The day after you had taken this deposition? Yes.
Was the baron d'Ende willing to come as a witness to this country? Yes he was.
At the time that you took his deposition on the 20th? Yes, he was.
Did he state any condition on which alone he could come to this country? He said he could not come without the consent of the grand duke.
After the return of the grand duke to Carlsruhe did he then make any statement as to his coming to this country? He told me on the 23rd, which was the morning he had seen the grand duke, that the grand duke had refused to grant him permission to come.
Be so good as to state, if you can, the precise words he made use of? He came to me and stated, I have bad news for you, the grand duke will not let me go.
The Attorney General
stated, that he would not interrupt the examination, unless it was supposed it might have a bearing upon the case itself; that if it was understood to be a collateral inquiry, with respect to the conduct of his majesty's government, or the interference of the grand duke, with that he had nothing to do.
Mr. Denman
stated, that he did not examine to this as bearing upon the facts of the case.
Mr. Denman
.—Did he state any other reason for not coming? I am not aware that he did; he stated that he enjoyed his Hanoverian estates through his majesty, or through his majesty's kindness; but that he would not let that be a difficulty in the way of his coming to this country as a witness, because he was satisfied his majesty would not think ill of him for coining as a witness.
302
Did you make any other application to him in regard to his deposition? I did; I wrote him a letter requesting him to make a deposition, before the legal authorities of the town, of the facts he had stated.
Did he do so? He did not.
Did he ever give you any other reason for not coming than that you have stated? No.
Did he give you any reason for not making that deposition? That he could not do it without the consent of the grand duke, and that he had not that consent.
Was there a person of the name of Mandeville there? There was.
Was he in the presence of yourself and the chamberlain? He was not.
At no time? No; but he was in the hotel that I was in, and I dined with him most days.
He knew of your being there? He did.
Did you communicate to him your being there on behalf of her majesty? I did not.
When did you return to this country? The day before yesterday.
Do you know whether, during your stay at Carlsruhe, any other person arrived on the part of her majesty the Queen? A Mr. Sicard.
Do you know that yourself? I saw him arrive.
You returned the day before yesterday? I reached London the day before yesterday.
Examined by the
Lords
Lord Grantham
.—In what language did this pass between you and the chamberlain? Principally in English; he speaks English very well.
In what other language? In French.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then
Anthony Butler St. Leger,
Were you chamberlain to her majesty the Queen? I had that honour.
How long did you continue in that office? About eleven years.
From what period? From 1808 to October 1819.
Did you go abroad with her majesty in the year 1814? I went as far as Brunswick with her majesty. Her majesty dispensed with my accompanying her on her tour, on account of my health, and on account of my family, and she was good enough only to require that I should attend her as far as Brunswick.
You say her tour, what tour do you refer to? Her intention of going abroad; it was then said Germany and Italy, as I understood.
Was that understood before you left England? It was so.
According to that permission, did you leave her majesty at Brunswick? According to that permission I left her majesty at Brunswick, as she was good enough to say, that
303
In the course of the last year, the year 1819, did you receive any communication from her majesty? I received a communication, I think it was in the month of July or August, I cannot charge my memory at present which, that her majesty intended to be in England in the month of September.
The Attorney General
objected to communications between her majesty and Mr. St. Leger being received in evidence.
Mr. Denman
.—In consequence of any communication you received, did you make any preparation? In consequence of that communication, I prepared to go and meet her majesty, as she desired, at Dover.
Has the state of your health rendered it impossible for you to attend her majesty from the time you left her at Brunswick till the present time? The state of my health has been such that unfortunately I could not attend her majesty; I have been obliged to go into Devonshire for five years past, where I have been entirely confined all the evenings during the winter months.
Since her majesty's return to this country, have you paid your respects to her? Immediately on her majesty's return to this country I paid my respects to her.
In consequence of the state of your health, did you resign your office? In consequence of the state of my health only; I had the honour of communicating to her majesty that I should be prevented attending her, and I requested her on that ground to receive my resignation.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then the Earl of Guilford was sworn by the Lord Chancellor, at the table, and was examined in his place, and by leave of the House, as also with the permission of the earl of Guilford, the questions were put directly to his lordship by the Counsel, Mr. Tindal, instead of to the Lord Chancellor in the first instance, and through him to his lordship, as is the usage and practice of the House.
Does your lordship recollect when her present majesty was at Naples? I recollect coming to Naples after her majesty was there. Her majesty was already there when I arrived at Naples.
About what time was it when your lordship arrived there? I think it was in the very beginning of March in the year of our Lord 1815.
Did any one accompany your lordship upon that occasion? My sister lady Charlotte, Lindsay.
When your lordship arrived at Naples, who formed the suite of her majesty? To the best of my recollection the suite of her majesty were formed by lady Elizabeth Forbes, the
304
Does your lordship remember at that time any person of the name of Pergami? Yes, I recollect seeing that person.
In what situation was that person at the time your lordship first saw him? As far as I understood, he was courier.
How long did your lordship remain at Naples? I remained at Naples only three or four days; three days to the best of my recollection.
Was lady Charlotte Lindsay with your lordship when you went there, or did she arrive afterwards? She arrived together with me; we travelled together from Nice to Naples.
Did lady Charlotte Lindsay accompany your lordship when you left Naples? No, she did not; I left Naples before her.
Where did your lordship next see the Queen? At Rome.
What interval was there between your seeing her at Naples and seeing her again at Rome? A very few days; the exact number of days I cannot remember, but it was but a few days before I saw her majesty at Naples.
How long did her majesty remain at Rome? A very few days, I think not more than two or three days; I know it was a very short time.
During that time did your lordship dine with her majesty? I do not think I did at Rome.
Had your lordship dined with her before at Naples? Yes, I had dined with her once at Naples.
Does your lordship recollect who dined there upon that occasion? Particularly I do not remember; there was a considerable party, but the particular individuals who dined there I do not call to my recollection; there were a good many English persons.
Were there any of the nobility of the court of Naples? That I cannot positively recollect.
Did lady Charlotte Lindsay dine there on that day? She did.
Can your lordship recollect whether Mrs: Falconet was one of the party? Whether she dined there on that specific day I do not recollect.
Besides dining with her majesty at Naples, had you other opportunities of seeing her? Only once, the morning of my arrival.
After leaving Rome, where did your lordship next see her majesty? At Civita Vecchia.
Did not her majesty embark at Civita Vecchia to go to Genoa? She did.
How long had she staid there before she embarked? Five or six days; a short time; I think it did not exceed a week.
Did your lordship and lady Charlotte Lindsay form part of her party whilst she was at Civita Vecchia? We dwelt in the same; house with her majesty.
305
And of course lived at table with her majesty? Every day; always.
During that time were any other persons invited, during the stay at Civita Vecchia? The persons invited were, the master of the house, the marchese Mansi, one day, and the other persons of the family.
Are those the persons whom your lordship has before enumerated as forming her majesty's suite when at Naples? No, with the exception of Dr. Holland; Dr. Holland was there; the other persons were not there.
Was Mrs. Falconet there? She was there.
Had Mrs. Falconet any daughters? She had two daughters.
Of what age might those daughters be? The eldest was a young lady, I suppose of fifteen or sixteen and the other was younger.
Does your lordship know who Mrs. Falconet was? I had known Mrs. Falconet before that time in England; she was either an English woman or an American, I believe an American by birth.
In what situation of life was Mrs. Falconet? She was before in a very reputable situation, and was married to Mr. Falconet a banker at Naples.
Is he a person in a considerable line of business? Very considerable.
Does your lordship know, whether she was a person who associated with the first ranks in that country? As far as persons in her situation associated with the principal people, I believe she did; I had not been then acquainted with her for a great while, but I have every reason to believe she did.
Does your lordship know, whether Mrs. Falconet was received among the first ranks of English in that country? I cannot speak particularly to that, not having seen her for some time before.
Does your lordship know, whether one of the daughters of Mrs. Falconet afterwards married an Italian of considerable station in society? I believe she has two daughters married, as far as I understand; one of them I have seen, who is married to an American gentleman of the name of Middleton, and the other, as I have heard, to monsieur Portallis.
Do you mean Mr. Portallis a considerable banker and proprietor in Switzerland? That I really do not know, I have heard his name, but never saw him.
Are those two ladies whom you have mentioned the same two daughters you met at Civita Vecchia, or other two? No, other two daughters; I believe both those ladies were married at that time.
Did the two unmarried daughters whom you met there dine at the table with her majesty? They did.
When her majesty embarked, it was on board the Clorinde, was it not? It was.
Did your lordship embark with her? I did.
And lady Charlotte Lindsay? And lady Charlotte Lindsay.
306
Who else embarked in the suite of her majesty? Madame Falconet did, and her two daughters, and Dr. Holland.
Where did your lordship and lady Charlotte Lindsay disembark? We disembarked at Leghorn.
From that time there was a considerable interval before your lordship met her majesty again? There was a very considerable time that summer; I did not see her majesty again till the month of November in the year 1815.
Where was it that your lordship then saw her? At the Villa d'Este, her house on the lake of Como.
Was your lordship accompanied at that time by lady Charlotte Lindsay? No, I was not; I saw her first on the lake of Como, in paying my respects to her at her Villa.
Where was lady Charlotte Lindsay at that time? In England.
Did your lordship dine there upon that occasion? I did.
At that time was Pergami sitting at the table of her majesty? He was.
Had you ever seen him before silting at her majesty's table? Never.
Did your lordship stay longer upon that occasion than the day on which yon dined there? No, I went away that evening.
Where did your lordship go to? I slept at the town of Como that night, and the next day I went to Milan.
Did your lordship afterwards, while you were in that country, pay her majesty a second visit? I did; the Sunday following I dined with her majesty at Milan.
When you were there the first time, had you intended to pay a longer visit to her majesty than the dining with her? I do not recollect that I had. I had no particular intention. I was at the time travelling, and only intended to pay my respects to her majesty. I do not charge my memory that I had any intention of staying longer.
Your lordship is understood to have stated that you dined there the Sunday following? The Sunday following at Milan: when I saw her majesty on the lake of Como, her majesty invited me to dine with her the following Sunday at Milan.
Was Pergami at the table that second time? He was.
Has your lordship seen her majesty since that time? I have not.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Attorney General
You have stated that while your lordship was at Naples, Pergami was in the situation of a courier; did it happen when your lordship dined with her majesty either at Naples or at Civita Vecchia, or on board the Clorinde, that he waited at table?. At Civita Vecchia he certainly did; I do not remember whether he did at Naples.
Did he so on board the Clorinde? I really do not recollect whether he did on board the Clorinde, I cannot positively charge my me-
307
Did lady Charlotte Lindsay hold at that time any situation in her majesty's suite? She was lady of the bed-chamber to her majesty, then her royal highness.
When did she quit that situation? She quitted that situation to the best of my recollection, for I was then out of England, in the beginning of the year 1817, about the month of May, I think, in the year 1817.
Although you say she quitted the situation in 1817, she was not actually in her majesty's suite after she left her in Italy? After she left her at Leghorn, to the best of my knowledge, my sister never joined her majesty.
When you visited her majesty at the Villa d'Este, was there any lady in attendance upon her at that time? There was an Italian lady, who I understood was the countess Oldi.
In the course of dining with her majesty at the Villa d'Este, did you occasionally converse with that lady? Very little, I had some Conversation.
From your conversation with her, did she speak the Patois, or the pure Italian? She spoke, to the best of my recollection, a very good intelligible Italian, with rather an accent of the Lombardy, but not very remarkable: we had no very long conversation.
When you visited her majesty at the Villa d'Este, did you see her grounds? I did.
Do you remember whether you had a Greek or an Albanian servant with your lordship at that time? I had a Greek servant with me at the time.
Did her majesty accompany you into the grounds? Her majesty first showed me great part of her gardens, and afterwards lent me her donkey to ride upon to see the rest.
Does your lordship recollect in what part of your tour round the gardens it was that you mounted the donkey? I mounted it I think very near the door, I went afterwards round the olive yard and other places in the grounds.
In going round the grounds, or at the time of coming out, did your lordship see her royal highness in the grounds? While I walked with her royal highness I saw her, but I do not recollect to have seen her walking about the grounds after that.
Do you recollect seeing your servant walking about the grounds? I do not remember to have seen him, though I might have seen him walking about the grounds.
Does your lordship remember whether you did see him walking about the grounds? No, it is a thing I have not charged my memory with.
Your lordship never stated you saw your servant in those grounds? Not that I saw him in the grounds, I heard that he had walked round them.
Do you recollect having stated that you had seen him in any part of those grounds
308
Will your lordship have the goodness to recollect whether you did not see him walking in the gardens with her royal highness? I do not remember that I did.
Or going any where? Nor going any where; I do not recollect the circumstance.
Does your lordship remember a Summer-house or grotto? I remember perfectly her royal highness showing it me.
Does your lordship recollect seeing her royal highness with your servant near that grotto? No, certainly not.
Has your lordship never stated that you saw her royal highness? I never stated that I had seen him with her royal highness, that I had seen him with her in the grotto, certainly not.
Nor in the grounds? She might have been walking with him, but I do not recollect having seen it, or having stated it.
Is your lordship to be understood to state, that you do not now remember whether the circumstance took plate or mot? Certainly.
That it might have taken place, but you do not recollect it? It might have taken place, but I do not recollect it.
That your lordship might have seen it, but you do not-recollect it? They might have been in the garden, but I do not recollect it striking me as any thing remarkable.
Then if it did not strike your lordship as any thing remarkable, it is not likely your lordship should so state that to any one? Certainly.
Will your lordship undertake to say you never have stated that? I can undertake to say I never have said I had seen them together in the grotto.
Or on that day? On that day certainly I have no recollection of it; I do; not mean to say I did not See them in the garden, but I do not recollect it.
Had your lordship been accustomed to ride at that time? I had not been a great rider, but at that time I only rode upon a donkey.
Who requested your lordship to ride-upon the donkey? The princess of Wales.
Did she urge your lordship to ride round the grounds on the donkey? She certainly did.
Where was your lordship's servant at that time? In the house I believe, or in the grounds; he went with mc to the house I recollect perfectly, and was there walking about, I do not know where about he was in the grounds; I know he was at the place.
How long did that 'servant remain with your lordship afterwards? He remained till the year 1817; he left me at Venice in the month of May 1817.
309
Previous to jour sister.lady Charlotte Lindsay quilling the situation with her. royal highness, had your lordship any conversation with her upon that subject? I had correspondence with her.
Did you recommend to lady Charlotte Lindsay the propriety of resigning the situation which she held about the person of her royal highness? I did advise her to resign it.
What were the considerations which induced you to give that advice.
Mr. Brougham
here desired to remind their lordships that this was a question addressed to points on which he had been restrained from entering.
The Lord Chancellor
agreed with the learned counsel, that the examination was taking an irregular course, and it might indeed be adviseable to expunge the preceding question and answer.
Re-examined by Mr.
Tindal
Can your lordship recollect what the size of this garden was? It was a formal Italian garden, of what size I cannot now precisely recollect.
Your lordship cannot recollect the number of acres within a few? No, I cannot; It was a handsome fair garden.
At the different times, whenever your lordship has seen her royal highness and Pergami together, have you ever observed any impropriety of conduct in her royal highness?
The Attorney General submitted that this did not arise out of the cross-examination.
The Counsel were informed, that it ought to have been asked on original examination, or that if now asked, it would let in the attorney-general to put further questions upon it.
Examined by the
Lords
Lord Rous
.—When you saw her royal highness on the lake of Como, was any body with her? Yes, Pergami.
Earl Grey
.—At any time when yon have been at her royal highness's, and Pergami was in company, have you ever seen any improper familiarity between them? No, certainly none.
310
Earl of Liverpool
.—Were her manners and conversation, the manners and conversation of a person who had been well educated, and who had lived in good society? Upon that subject I really knew her so little, I only conversed with her a very few words during the dinner, and I could not form any opinion of that sort as to the extent of her education; our conversation was extremely short, and there was nothing at all remarkable in the conversation.
Lord Erskine
.—Did not your lordship state, I observed nothing vulgar in her conversation, not the least? My conversation with her was very short, I was not struck with any thing vulgar.
Earl of Lauderdale
—When your lordship dined with her royal highness at Como, did you sit next her royal highness? I did.
Where did Pergami sit? On the other side of her royal highness.
When your lordship dined at Milan with her royal highness, where did you then sit? I sat by her royal highness's side.
Where did Pergami sit? He sat on the other side.
Did he, during the time of dinner, receive any attentions from her royal highness? No particular attentions certainly.
Did your lordship? Her royal highness was exceedingly gracious to me, and conversed with me.
Did you observe how she conducted herself in relation to Pergami? I perceived nothing particular in her royal highness's manner to Pergami at either of those interviews.
Where did countess Oldi sit? She sat on the other side of me at Como; I believe she did at Milan, but I cannot speak with certainty.
Who was at table besides those you have mentioned? Lieutenant Hownam, William Austin, and an Italian gentleman, as I understood, a medical man, who they said
311
Was it the same company at Como and at Milan? It was, to the best of my recollection.
Lord Kenyon
.—What was the size of the boat in which the princess and Pergami were on the lake of Como? A very small one, a small boat.
Earl Bathurst
.—Did her royal highness introduce you to Pergami? She said, pointing to him, "Voici Monsieur Pergami."
Earl of Darlington
.—What was the deportment of Pergami towards her royal highness? Nothing particular; very respectful.
Earl of Belmore
.—Did your sister, lady Charlotte Lindsay, leave the princess of Wales's service of her own accord, or was she dismissed? She left it of her own accord.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, it ought to be understood that every peer was in the situation of a judge, and was entitled to put any question that was not in itself illegal.
312
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that they were all undoubtedly in the situation of judges, but it behoved them to act concurrently, and to render their proceedings as similar as possible to those over which a single judge presided.
The Earl of Belmore
was of opinion that the question he had put was one of considerable importance, as regarding the merits of the case, but he was perfectly ready to withdraw it, if in their lordships judgment, it appeared irregular.
Lord Ellenborough
.—Did your lordship make any particular observations on the manners of Pergami? The observations I made on the manners of Pergami were, that they were perfectly unobtrusive, that he was not forward; that was the only observation I made. I have been asked, whether I had a Greek servant in the garden behind the House, to the best of my recollection I had; and that I mentioned the having a Greek servant to her royal highness; but more than that I do not recollect. She observed his dress; but as to having seen them walking together, I have no remembrance of the circumstance. I have, upon this subject, but a very imperfect recollection, but I think I did mention him, in walking in the garden, as a Greek servant, observing that I had him from Athens; he was in the dress of the country.
Had your lordship any conversation with Pergami? No particular conversation: Pergami spoke but little while I was there; and I think the only time when I was ever in a room alone with Pergami was in the gallery of the house at Milan, when he showed me some pictures; but I do not remember any particular conversation.
From the opportunities your lordship had of observing the behaviour of Pergami, could you form any opinion of his being superior to the situation in which he had formerly lived? No, it did not strike me that he was.
This question and the answer were read at the request of Mr. Denman to his lordship, and he stated that the answer was correct.
Then the Right Hon. Lord Glenbervie was called, and sworn by the Lord Chancellor, at the table, and examined by Mr. Wilde as follows:
Did your lordship see her present majesty at the time she was princess of Wales at any time at Genoa? I did.
Were you at that time accompanied by lady Glenbervie? I was.
Did her ladyship for any period form any part of the suite of her royal highness? No, not at that time.
Did her ladyship, at any time during the period your lordship was at Genoa, attend in the suite of her royal highness? She did.
313
In what way? When her royal highness arrived at Genoa, lady Glenbervie and I were there; lady Glenbervie was not in her service at that time, but lady Charlotte Campbell was expected from Nice; the frigate that brought the princess was sent on immediately to Nice, to fetch lady Charlotte Campbell; lady Glenbervie having been formerly one of the ladies of the bed-chamber to the princess, finding herself at Genoa, proposed to the princess, who had none of her ladies with her then, to attend her till the arrival of lady Charlotte Campbell.
Did your lordship, during the time that lady Glenbervie was in attendance upon the princess of Wales, dine at the table of her royal highness? Frequently.
For what period? Her royal highness arrived, I think, on the 26th of March; lady Glenbervie and I continued there till the 17th of May: the princess did not leave Genoa, I think, till the day after we did, which would be the 18th; during that period very frequently dined with the princess, but not every day.
Did your lordship during that time see a person of the name of Pergami? I saw him every day that I dined there.
What was the conduct which your lordship observed in her royal highness during that period towards Pergami? Pergami waited behind her royal highness's back, in the habit of a courier; it happened to me often to have the honour of sitting next her, and all that I saw was the behaviour of any mistress of her rank to her servant waiting behind her; he often helped her and me to wine and to other things.
What was the conduct observed by Pergami towards her royal highness? That of a servant.
Was it respectful, becoming his then situation, or otherwise? I did not pay any particular attention, but if there had been any thing like disrespect. I must have observed it.
Has your lordship mentioned the year? This was in the year 1815.
What company did your lordship meet at her royal highness's table during that period? Mrs. Falconet and her two daughters, and Mr. Hownam, a lieutenant in the navy, lady Charlotte Campbell after she arrived, which was some days, about a week perhaps after the princess arrived, Dr. Holland also most days, I am not sure he did not all, and also some Genoese noblemen, one I particularly recollect, the marchese John Carlo Negri, and some English gentlemen, I think some officers of the navy; indeed I am sure the captain of the frigate that brought the princess.
Did your lordship sec lady William Bentinck there? I saw her at Genoa.
At her royal highness's? Yes, I think I did, at a ball, and I believe at a party; whether she dined there or not I cannot state.
314
Can your lordship recollect attending any of the halls given by her royal highness? The only ball I recollect, I was at.
Did your lordship meet there the persons of rank of the place? All the society I was in the habit of meeting, the principal ladies and gentlemen of the place.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Solicitor General
Your lordship did not live in the house? I did not live in the house, nor lady Glenbervie.
When lady Charlotte Campbell arrived, which was after the interval of a week, lady Glenbervie ceased to act in the situation she had before occupied? Yes, she did; but she was often there at dinner.
How many times, on an average, might your lordship have dined there; two or three times in a week, or how often? Yes, two or three times, or more.
Is your lordship to be understood to state that Pergami at that time appeared in the dress of a servant? A fancy dress, the dress of a courier according to my recollection.
Examined by the
Lords
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Did your lordship meet captain Pechell of the Clorinde at dinner at the princess's? I think I did.
Then his lordship withdrew.
Then Lady Chariotte Lindsay was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Dr. Lusnington as follows:
Did you ever form a part of the suite of her royal highness the princess of Wales? Yes, I did.
When did you first enter her royal highness's service? I first entered her royal highness's service, I think, but I cannot be entirely certain, in the year 1808.
Did your ladyship attend her royal highness when she went abroad in 1814? I did.
Was not your ladyship one of the ladies of the bed-chamber? I was.
How far did you go with the princess of Wales upon that journey? I accompanied her royal highness as far as Brunswick.
Why did your ladyship not go further? It never was understood by her royal highness nor by me that I was to go further than merely to accompany her to Brunswick.
When did your ladyship again see her royal highness? I saw herroyal highness at Naples in the beginning of March 1815.
Did you then act as lady of the bed-chamber to her royal highness? I did.
How long then did you continue with her royal highness? I joined her royal highness the beginning of March, remained with her royal highness as long as she staid at Naples, left Naples with her royal highness, accompanied her to Rome, from thence to Civita Vecchia, then embarked with her on board the Clorinde, and quitted her at Leghorn,
315
By whom was her royal highness visited while she was at Naples? She was visited by all the English of distinction there, and by the Neapolitans of distinction, and other foreigners.
Would your ladyship be pleased to state the names or some of those? Lord and lady Llandaft, lord and lady Gage, lord and lady Conyngham, lord and lady Holland, and, I believe, various others; lord Clare, lord Granville Somerset, lord Frederick Montague, lord and lady Oxford, and many young Englishmen; Mr. Fazakerly, Mr. Davenport, Mr. William Benkes, sir Humphey and lady Davy; there may be many others that I have forgotten.
Was her royal highness visited by Mrs. Falconet? She was.
And her daughter? And her daughter.
Was your ladyship on board the Clorinde with her royal highness? I was.
Does your ladyship remember where her royal highness slept? On board the Clorinde her royal highness slept in a part of the captain's cabin; it was divided into two, her royal highness slept in one half, and the captain and his brother in the other half, with a partition between.
Did any one sleep in that division of the cabin in which her royal highness slept? Yes, her maid.
Does your ladyship recollect any thing arising in consequence of the cabin being divided into two parts? I recollect no particular, except that her royal highness rather expressed her surprise, that the other half of the cabin had not been appropriated to my use, instead of the captain and his brother continuing to occupy it.
Did that occasion any difference between her royal highness and the captain? No, I did not observe any difference upon the subject of it; it was merely a remark she made to me.
Does your ladyship remember a person by the name of Pergami being in the service of her royal highness? I do.
In what capacity? As courier.
Had your ladyship opportunities of seeing what passed between her royal highness and Pergami? I was often in company with her royal highness when Pergami was attending.
How did he conduct himself? Just in the common way that a person in his situation would naturally conduct himself.
How did her royal highness conduct herself towards him? In the same manner that a mistress would conduct herself towards a servant.
Did your ladyship ever observe any impropriety of conduct between the princess of Wales and Pergami? Never.
When did your ladyship quit her royal highness's service? I sent in my resignation in the year 1817.
316
What was your ladyship's reason for resigning? My brother wrote to me requesting me to resign, and I complied with his request.
Has your ladyship seen her royal highness since she has returned to this country? I have.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Solicitor General
How long was it before her royal highness quitted Naples that you joined her? I should, think about twelve days, ten or twelve days.
How much time was so occupied in proceeding from Naples to Leghorn? We slept one night, in going to Home, staid two nights at Rome, I think we were six nights at Civita Vecchia, waiting for the frigate, and three nights on board the frigate.
Your ladyship is understood to have then left Leghorn, and not to have returned again into the service of her royal highness? I did not resign at that time.
You did not enter after that into the actual service of her royal highness? I left Leghorn for the purpose of having my brother to escort me home to England.
During the time you were at Civita Vecchia did you see Pergami? I did, every day.
Try and recollect with accuracy, whether you did not see him at Civita Vecchia, walking with her royal highness? Her royal highness and I frequently walked out together, and Pergami attended; he did not walk with us, but he walked a little way behind, a short distance behind.
Did that happen every time you walked out? Every time, as far as I can recollect.
Was there any other courier in the service of her royal highness at that time? I believe Hieronimus was also a courier, but I cannot be entirely certain; he was with us.
Does your ladyship mean to say, by saying that Hieronimus was with you, that he walked out with you? No, I do not recollect that he walked out.
Have you the least doubt that he did not walk out with you? I do not think that I had the honour of walking out above twice with her royal highness; I walked out with her every time she walked.
Your ladyship was understood before, to say, that you walked out several times with her royal highness? I might have walked out with her three times, perhaps, but I do not at this moment call to mind above twice that we walked; but I cannot positively swear that we might not have walked out three or four times.
Perhaps your ladyship will swear that you did not walk five or six times? Yes, I can swear that.
You will not undertake to say that you did not walk out four? No, but I think not.
But every time you did walk out, the courier who accompanied you then was Pergami? Yes.
317
Will your ladyship take upon yourself to swear, that upon no one of those occasions her royal highness walked arm in arm with Pergami? I have not any recollection of her walking arm in arm with Pergami.
Will your ladyship take upon yourself to swear she did not? I have no recollection of it; as far as I can recollect, Pergami attended us at a little distance, unless he was called to be asked a question.
Your ladyship is to be understood, that you will not swear that her royal highness did not walk, upon that occasion, arm in arm with Pergami? I certainly do not recollect that she ever did walk arm in arm with Pergami.
But you will not swear that she did not? I cannot positively swear, but I never was struck with it.
If such a thing bad happened, must it not have struck your ladyship? I suppose it would have struck me; and therefore I imagine it did not happen.
But you will not swear it did not happen? I will not swear, because she might have taken his arm upon some particular occasion; not that I recollect that she did, but it might have happened without my being struck with any thing extraordinary.
Your ladyship was understood to state, that if she had taken his arm it would have struck you as something extraordinary? If they had walked arm in arm, but she might have taken his arm.
But you think she might have taken his arm, though they did not walk arm in arm? She might have taken his arm, but I have no recollection of the circumstance.
Your ladyship filled the office of lady of the bed-chamber? I did.
That office did not necessarily lead you into her royal highness's bed-room? Very frequently it did; her royal highness sent for me very frequently.
At Naples? At Naples.
Was her royal highness always alone upon those occasions? Not always alone, certainly; sometimes there were persons with her.
Do you recollect ever upon any of those occasions seeing Pergami in the bed-room? I saw him myself in the bed-room, for we used to dine in the bed-room. I dined in the bed-room with the princess and William Austin, and Pergami used to wait upon us as a servant.
Was that during the time you were at Napies? During the time I was at Naples.
Did any other 'person, except William Austin and yourself and her royal highness dine upon those occasions in the bed-room? No, I think nobody but we three dined; but other servants used to bring in dishes.
Did that happen frequently while her royal highness was at Naples, during the time you were with her? Yes, that happened whenever her royal highness had not company to dinner, and excepting one day, when I went
318
Upon those occasions did Pergami always wait? I think he did, but I cannot positively swear.
When was it that your ladyship quitted the service of her royal highness? In the year 1817.
Had any application been made to your ladyship to join her royal highness in Germany before you took the resolution of quitting? Yes, there had.
How long before? I cannot accurately remember how long before.
Was any proposition made about appointing colonel Lindsay to the situation of chamberlain to her royal highness?
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question. This was exactly the line of cross-examination (named, with reference to the contents of a written document, which document, if it existed, was the only evidence which ought to be produced) that the other side, after two hours argument, had prevented him from taking; and he therefore did not see why it should be taken by his learned friends. There was nothing at all in the question of any consequence; but as he had been prevented examining in the same way, he chose to object to it.
The Lord Chancellor
said, their lordships' object was not to save their time, but to do justice. If the objection was well founded it could not be given up by the counsel, because it was the duty of the House to suffer no question to be put which was improper. He suggested that the House should now adjourn and consider this point to-morrow.
The House accordingly adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, October 6, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to de-"prive Her Majesty, &c," and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; the Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then the right hon. Lady
Charlotte Lindsay
Is there a garden in the neighbourhood of Naples called La Favorita? Yes, there is.
Did your ladyship ever walk in that garden with her royal highness? Yes, I did one day.
Was Pergami also present at that time? He was.
319
Did your ladyship in going from Naples to Rome, travel in the same carriage wth her royal highness? I did.
Did Pergami ride as courier during that journey? He did.
Did your ladyship also go in the same carriage in the journey from Rome, after your ladyship left Rome? From Rome to Civita Vecchia. Yes, I did.
Did Pergami also ride as courier during that part of the journey? I believe he did, but I have not so accurate a recollection of it as of the former part.
Does your ladyship recollect, upon the former part of the journey, Pergami coming up to the window of the carriage, and addressing her royal highness, saying "à boire madame?" I perfectly recollect his coming up to the carriage, but it was after he was called; we had provisions in the carriage, and her royal highness gave him some of the provisions out of the carriage, and something to drink.
Has your ladyship a distinct recollection that it was after he was called? I think it certainly was after he was called.
Is there any circumstance that enables your ladyship to pronounce with certainty as to that? No, but merely because it was more natural, that he should not come till he was called to have some provisions given to him.
Then your ladyship has no recollection either the one way or the other, as to that circumstance, but it is a mere inference from reasoning in your own mind? It is; there was nothing struck me as particular in the circumstance.
Was there any bottle in the carriage, which her royal highness handed to him? There was a bottle of wine.
Did he drink from that bottle? I think he did.
From the bottle itself without any glass? Yes, I think so.
Did he afterwards return that bottle to her royal highness? I cannot be quite positive, but I fancy he returned the bottle, but I cannot be by any means positive as to that; her royal highness and I had taken our refreshment before he was helped, and whether he returned the bottle to the carriage or not, or whether he threw the bottle away, I cannot be certain.
Although your ladyship is not certain, to the best of your recollection which way was it, did he return the bottle or throw it away? I rather think that he retuned the bottle to the carriage.
After your ladyship had made up your mind to quit the service of her royal highness, did you not state that it was a vast relief to your mind having come to the resolution of quitting her royal highness? I have no distinct recollection of having stated that.
When your ladyship says you have no distinct recollection of having stated that, do you remember having stated any thing to that
320
Did not your ladyship, after you had come to the determination of quitting her royal highness's service, say that it was a vast relief to your mind, having come to the resolution of quitting the service of her royal highness, and that you then considered that no woman with any regard to her character could remain in the service of her royal highness? I certainly do not recollect ever having stated any such thing in such words.
Does your ladyship recollect having stated any thing to that effect? No.
Will your ladyship undertake to say, that you did not state the very words now made use of? I have no recollection of having stated any such words.
Your ladyship will not undertake to say you did not make use of those very words? I can say that I did not make use of those very words; I have no recollection of having made use of any such words.
Your ladyship had before said you had no recollection of having made use of such words, and the question then proposed was, whether you would undertake to say that you had not made use of such words? I can only say I think it extremely improbable that I should have made use of such words; and I do not recollect that I did.
Your ladyship is to be understood to say you will not undertake to say that you did not make use of those words? I can only say that I have no recollection of that; I think it very improbable.
Will your ladyship undertake to say that you did not make use of words to that effect more than once? I have no recollection of having made use of words to that effect.
But your ladyship will not undertake to say that you did not make use of those expressions more than once? I can only answer as I did before, that I have no recollection and I do not think it probable.
Did not your ladyship say, upon quitting the service of her royal highness, that if it had not been for an anxious desire to assist a particular individual out of the savings in that service, you would have quitted the service long before? I think it is very possible I might have made use of those words; I do not distinctly recollect that I did, but I think it is possible.
Having recalled this little circumstance to the recollection of your ladyship, did not the former conversation, to which allusion has been made, pass at the same time? I have no distinct recollection at what time I might have said I was induced to remain, from the wish of assisting that individual from my salary; I have no distinct recollection when I said that, and I certainly do not think it was coupled with any words expressive of an ill opinion of the princess.
Is your ladyship to be understood that it was not so, or that you merely think it was not
321
But your ladyship will not be positive? I can only say that I have no kind of recollection of it, and that I do think it not at all probable.
Still your ladyship is understood that you will not say positively that it was not so? I have no kind of recollection of ever having stated that my resignation was on account of what you mention, that no woman of character could remain.
Your ladyship will perceive that is not an answer to the question put, whether your ladyship will say positively that it was not so? I can only say I have not the least recollection that I said so to any body.
Your ladyship, in answer to a question put on the examination in chief, stated, that some communication had been made by lord Guilford; was the conversation to which your ladyship has spoken, and which your ladyship recollects, after that communication, from lord Guilford? I have not the least recollection whether it was before or after.
Does your ladyship recollect, whether or not it was about the same time? No, I do not recollect any thing about the period at which the conversation you allude to might have taken place.
Was it after your ladyship had actually resigned? I do not know.
Are there no circumstances to bring that fact to your recollection? Yes, I think that what I said about having continued in the service, in order that my salary might help a certain individual, must have taken place after the communication made me by my brother.
Re-examined by Dr.
Lushington
You have been asked as to communications which took place verbally, upon the subject of your ladyship's resignation; to whom was that communication made? To my husband.
To any one else? To no one else.
Is Mr. Lindsay a person in distressed circumstances? He is.
Has he been so for a considerable period of time? For some years.
Had your ladyship ever any difficulty, whilst in the princesses service with respect to the payment of your salary?
The Solicitor-general objected to the question, as not arising out of the cross-examination.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Dr. Lushington
said he had, in the first instance, asked why the witness had quitted the service of her royal highness. In the cross-examination the solicitor-general had endeavoured to show that she had quitted her situation for reasons that had not been stated in her examination in chief—reasons which might materially affect her majesty. He now
322
The Solicitor General
said, he wished to enter into no argument on the subject. Rather than do this, he would suffer the question to be answered.
The Witness was again called in and the question was put.
Yes, at one lime there was a good deal of arrear due.
Did any other circumstances occur in the year 1817 to render your ladyship's continuing in that situation disagreeable to you? Yes, it would have been particularly disagreeable if my attendance had been required at that time, because I was under considerable depression of spirits.
Had your ladyship at that time lost a near relation? I had lost two.
Was it not the late lord Guilford, and the late lady Glenbervie? Yes it was.
Did you yourself observe any thing in the conduct of her royal highness, any impropriety, to induce you to quit her service? I myself never observed any improprieties in the conduct of her royal highness to induce me to quit her service.
Examined by the
Lords
Earl of Donoughmore
.—You have mentioned that you joined the princess of Wales ten or twelve days previous to her leaving Naples? I did say so.
323
324
Lord Calthorpe
.—During your acquaintance with her royal highness, had your ladyship observed in her a degree of familiarity towards her menial servants, both male and female, that is unusual in persons of such high distinction? I certainly think that her royal highness was peculiarly affable and familiar in her manner to all her servants.
325
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Your ladyship has said that you quitted her royal highness's service, in consequence of a request from the earl of Guilford your brother; was that request communicated in writing? It was.
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Your ladyship has said, that when at Naples you have been in her royal highness's bed-chamber; did you go into her royal highness's bed-chamber when you were not sent for, or without knocking at the door? I do not suppose that I went without being sent for; but I am certain I did not knock at the door when I went.
326
Llandaff
327
328
Mr. Brougham
.—Your lordship is requested to speak from your own knowledge, and your own practice and experience? I have seen many ladies in bed in a morning.
Mr. Attorney General
Examined by the
Lords
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Does your lordship recollect the names of the other attendants at Naples when you dined with her majesty? The servants; no, I do not.
329
Lord Grantley
.—Whilst your lordship was abroad, did you observe any thing in the conduct of her royal highness calculated or likely to reflect disgrace upon our own country? I did not.
Lord Ellenborough
.—Does your lordship recollect a ball given by her royal highness to king Murat at Naples? I do.
Keppel Craven
330
Mr. Denman
maintained, that all that had yet occurred was material evidence. The question was, whether the two last questions and answers were to stand upon the Minutes, and whether he was to be allowed to continue his examination as to the family of Pergami. Now, he did not wish that either those questions should stand upon the Minutes, or that his examination into the family of Pergami should be allowed to continue, unless they were necessary to show that the family of Pergami was respectable, the allegation of the bill being, that he was a foreigner in a low situation—a menial servant, promoted highly beyond his merits. Now, if he proved that Pergami had been recommended to her majesty, by the highest authority, as a person whose family was respectable, though in reduced circumstances, and whose conduct was such as entitled him to consideration, and rendered him a fit object for promotion, he apprehended that he had shown sufficient cause why her majesty had given to Pergami that promotion which it was now imputed to
331
332
333
334
335
Mr. Solicitor-General
336
337
338
339
Examined by the
Lords
Lord Erskine
.—At the masked ball where you were present, you have said that you did not particularly notice one of the dresses of her royal highness, so as to be able to describe it; if that dress, or any dress that you saw her royal highness in, had been grossly immodest or indecent, must you have observed it? I must have observed it.
Lord Rosebery
.—Was the advice with respect to the withdrawing of William Austin from her royal highness's chamber followed or not? I understood it to be followed; I never was in her royal highness's room to see whether the beds were there.
Earl Grosvenor
.—Did you consider the manners of Pergami as superior to those of an ordinary courier? Yes.
Earl of Darnley
.—Have you any knowledge with regard to the passport granted to her majesty at Rome; did you ever see the passport? I saw the passport, but I did not read it.
A Peer
Lord Ellenborough
.—Did it occur to you, that there was any impropriety in the manner in which the princess was walking with Pergami in the garden at Naples? Not the least.
340
Earl of Liverpool
—Independently of the letter you received from England respecting her royal highness's motions being watched, what other reason had you for giving her a hint respecting walking with Pergami in the garden? I had no other reason.
A Peer
Earl of Donoughmore
.—You have mentioned just now, in answer to a question put as to the manners of Pergami, that you did not make any observation upon those manners till he became a gentleman, but that from his becoming a gentleman, you did not see any thing inconsistent in those manners; what was the period at which he ceased to be a servant, and began to be a gentleman? I do not know what the period was, for I was not with her royal highness.
Earl Bathurst
—You have stated that you supped with the countess of Oldi at Pesaro, with her royal highness; were there any I other ladies at supper at that time? Countess Oldi I dined with at Pesaro; there was another lady, an Italian lady, whose name I do not know.
341
Lord Erskine
.—You are understood to have said, that while Pergami was in the situation of a courier, you did not particularly attend to his manners; but that when you afterwards saw him, when he was promoted, you saw nothing in his appearance or manners inconsistent with those of a gentleman? Nothing at all.
Lord Gosford
.—In the journey in which you accompanied the princess of Wales to Naples, in the ordinary arrangement of the rooms, were the ladies or the gentlemen placed nearest her royal highness? The gentlemen were not placed near her royal highness, but there were always some men near her apartment to guard her.
Earl of Lauderdale
—Do you recollect the date at which you went to Pesaro? Within a few days.
342
Earl of Darlington
.—Were you the person who went to ask for the passports for her majesty at Rome? No, I was not; the passports were asked for before I came to Rome.
Earl of Belmore
.—You had known Pergami in the situation of courier to her majesty? Yes.
Lord Combermere
.—Was Pergami walking behind her royal highness on the terrace, or how? He was walking a little way behind her.
343
William Gell
Lord
Mr. Williams
.—Were you employed by her royal highness at the time, to make inquiries of the marquis on the subject? Oh certainly?
344
Mr. Denman
maintained, that such an objection was quite untenable and inapplicable in this case, as the estimation in which Bergami was held by persons of rank and respectability in his own country was relevant and necessary evidence, in order to repel the libellous matter contained in the bill before the House, from which it would appear, that he was quite a despicable person. For this purpose, he proposed to examine the witness as to the manner in which Bergami was regarded and treated by the representative of the Austrian government in Italy. He hoped, then, that their lordships would not allow any technical exceptions to interfere with the important object on this occasion of ascertaining the truth and administering justice.
Mr. Williams
argued, that no such exception as was urged by his learned friend on the other side, could be sustained upon any technical principles, independently of the broad ground adverted to by his learned friend, who had last addressed their lordships; for it was not sought to obtain from the witness any words uttered, or any conversation which might have passed between Bergami and the Austrian chamberlain, but merely how the latter treated the former upon their separation at a particular
345
umbra
Mr. Parke
rested his objection upon technical principles. The treatment which the chamberlain alluded to might have given to Bergami, must amount merely to an expression of opinion, and as that expression could not be received in evidence if tendered by word of mouth, he could not subscribe to its admissibility, when presented in the shape in which the counsel on the other side sought to introduce it.
The Earl of Liverpool
thought, that as the chamberlain alluded to was dead, the House had no other way of coming at the fact, hut by admitting the evidence now offered.
346
347
348
349
The Attorney General
submitted, that his learned friend was now entering on a course of examination that was objectionable on two different grounds. In the first place, the contents of a written instrument were not, by a fundamental principle of law, admissible in the shape of parole evidence. At the same time he thought it manifest that the circumstances to which this part of the examination was directed were not material to the question which their lordships had to try.
Mr. Daman
said, that in answer to these objections, he had to remark, that the rule of law, as observed in practice, was, to receive evidence regarding the contents of a written instrument, if that evidence was shown to be material to the general issue. It had already appeared that, conformably to usage, the passport in question was left with a post-master in Italy.
The Earl of Liverpool
begged to remind the learned counsel, that it was not a regular passport, but an order for post-horses.
Mr. Denman
—It operated as a passport: according to the strictest rule ob served in the strictest court, he was en titled, after previously indicating the materiality of the question, to render evidence as to the contents of any document. If his learned friend, Mr. Williams, were allowed to pursue his examination, he would assure their lordships that very important facts would be discovered. He would undertake to say, that the questions put by his learned friend, upon this subject, were most material, as affecting the interests of his royal client. It would be proved, if their lordships received the in formation, that in this passport, or post horse order, or document of some kind, her majesty was treated by the secretary of his holiness in a very extraordinary manner. They would find, that his excellency thought proper to describe her in that document as the "Princess Caroline of Brunswick," after being fully apprized that she had become Queen consort of England. The pope's secretary of state waited not for any judgment of the British legislature,—he asked not for any act of parliament to dethrone and
350
Mr. Williams
, on the same side, argued, that supposing the preliminary objection to be of that kind that must prevail in the courts below, or in the trial of an ordinary case, it was not a complete or valid objection in the present instance. But in every court of justice the materiality of evidence was a consideration to be entertained. No rule of admissibility was so strict as to exclude evidence that might affect the real merits of a case. It was always open, after the reception of such evidence, to determine whether it should be allowed to operate on the judgment which was to be ultimately pronounced. The present question came distinctly within the latitude sanctioned in courts of subordinate jurisdiction; and where, if a written instrument were shown to be lost, parole evidence of its contents was regularly admitted. No doubt could be entertained that a document had in this case been left abroad—left in a part of Europe where their lordships could exercise no control, and from which there were no positive means of recovering it. It was like a document shown to be lost, or to be no longer in existence. These were the considerations which seemed to him applicable to the first and only question which it was now necessary to discuss—the question of admissibility: whether the evidence was material or not was a subject for subsequent consideration.
351
The Attorney General
, in support of his objections, thought it extremely unfortunate that, whenever, in the discharge of a duty which he could not abandon, he did object, on principles of law, to the course which was pursued on behalf of the defence, his learned friends should break out into invective, and, instead of a distinct answer, should appeal to the passions or fancy of their audience. It was said that his objections were technical; but was a man in his situation to be so told whenever he found it necessary to interpose? Advantage had been already taken of his not interposing at previous stages of this proceeding; the
argumenlum ad hominem
352
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that the question just argued between the counsel at the bar was one of very great importance in itself, and also as it respected the merits of the present case. It was impossible, with justice to the case, to apply a rule to one part of the evidence, and not to enforce the application of it to every other part. If it was thought right to depart generally from the practice of the courts below, the departure ought to be complete. The first question' was that of admissibility; and, according to every legal principle of evidence, the proof of the loss or destruction of a document was to be made out before any parole testimony relative to it could be admitted. There were innumerable cases in which documents had been lost, the contents of which were most material to a clear understanding of the whole merits; but every court proceeding upon the known rules of evidence required it to be shown that application had been made, and all diligence used, for their production, and in vain. He should, therefore, propose that a question be referred to the Judges upon this subject; and that it should be framed in something like the following mode:—"Whether parole evidence, as to the contents of a passport stated to have been left abroad, could be admitted without some previous general testimony that application had been made; or, if not, that it could not have been made with any prospect of success?" If the learned Judges should decide in the negative, the second question of relevancy or non-relevancy would be disposed of. He would only now add, that it was impossible, in this stage of the proceeding, to conduct it so as to attain the ends of justice, unless they protected the witnesses up to its conclusion. He was sure no noble lord would have applied the epithets of corrupt or perjured to any witnesses in the midst of a pending process."
353
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that in the question which he had recited, he had mentioned the post-horse order, with reference to its being the next best evidence, in case the passport could not be produced. The whole matter would be for the consideration of the learned judges.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, it appeared to him, that it would be more difficult to get any information as to the post-horse order, than it would be to procure information relative to the passport; and for this reason; because the passport remained in the hands of the person who got it, and that person might be asked, whether he had the document in his possession, or whether lie had destroyed it? But it was not so with the order; for post-horses, which was left with the post-master, as his justification for granting those horses. The individual who presented the order had afterwards nothing to do with it. He begged leave to state, contrary to the opinion of the counsel at the bar, that a post-house was not like a court of record, where every paper was preserved. No reason existed for preserving papers there, as they were preserved in other offices. The post-master's only motive, in preserving the order for a short time, was, lest, in the course of twenty-four or forty-eight hours, he might be called on by his government to show why he had afforded facilities to any particular parties who might have passed through the country. If, as had been stated, all those orders were preserved, the whole library of the Vatican would not contain them in a very short time, so great a number of foreigners were continually passing through Italy. The case,
354
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, the practice throughout Europe was, to send the passport to the post-house, for the purpose of having the order made out from it. He must contend, that, before it was established that such a document was tantamount to a passport, evidence that no passport had existed should be given; for this, he believed, was the only case where an order for post-horses was granted without a passport being previously exhibited. The thing, he thought, was impossible; and he conceived they ought to have a preliminary examination, in order to ascertain that fact.
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that the view in which he understood the learned counsel to ask their lordships for liberty to give evidence of the passport, was in order to show the style and character in which the party travelled—a fact set forth in that document, which had been signed by the cardinal secretary of state. As to the question, whether all persons, wanting post-horses, must exhibit a passport, the noble earl would find, that the practice varied in different states, and even in the same state, at different times.
Lord Ellenborough
was of opinion, either that the original document should be produced, or that evidence should be given, in the first instance, of its destruction.
Lord Erskine
said, as he understood the subject, it appeared that the evidence which was sought to be given, went to this point—namely, whether cardinal Gonsalvi, in a certain paper signed by him, treated the Queen of England with due respect? Whether he did or did not deny to her that honour which she had a right to claim? Now, it appeared to him quite impossible that this could be shown by the production of an order for post-horses. Where was it to be had? In the courts here, an original copy, an office copy, or an examined copy of a document, might, according to the case, be procured. But what would one think if a postmaster were asked for an office copy or an examined copy of this order? The ques-
355
The Lord Chancellor
conceived, that the suggestion of his learned friend, if agreed to, might create considerable inconvenience.
The Earl of Liverpool
wished to say one word, without any desire to provoke discussion. He alluded to the second part of the objection, which was connected with the relevancy of the matter meant to be proved in evidence to the case now before them. He would ask, how that matter could, in any point of view, bear on the present case, unless they could connect the circumstance referred to with the government of this country. How the conduct of the pope or cardinal of the court of Rome, as to the treatment they had given her majesty, if that treatment were not connected with this government, could be considered as affecting this question, he could not perceive. He really thought the conduct of those individuals had nothing to do with the subject under consideration. He stated this, not as an objection on his part—for he was anxious to raise" as few of those objections as possible—but he merely threw it out as a suggestion for the consideration of others.
The Marquis of Lansdown
differed in opinion from the noble earl. He thought it would be most material to the Queen's case that the point in question should be proved. The noble earl stated, that it could be of no consequence if the conspiracy, of which it was said to form one indication, was not brought home to this country. But this was not a correct view of the circumstance. There might be a conspiracy formed in another country against her majesty the Queen, and its result might be the preferring of these very charges; although, at the same time, this government might not be at all privy to the existence of such conspiracy. He maintained, that it would be material for her majesty to prove a circumstance of this nature. Would their lordships refuse to hear evidence of such a conspiracy, because counsel at the bar stated that he could not bring it home to this government? Would they reject evidence, when counsel stated that he had the means of proving a conspiracy against the Queen in another country, which at a subsequent
356
The Lord Chancellor
said, he would not press their lordships to refer the question to the learned judges. He remained of the same opinion that he had originally advanced; and as he was extremely desirous to stand right with their lordships, he would re-state what that opinion was. His idea was, that, if an order for post-horses be written, its contents could not be proved by parole evidence unless testimony was given that it had been destroyed, or that it had been refused, after proper application was made for its production.
357
Lord Chancellor
.—You should recollect, Mr. Williams, that sir William Gell has got the gout. [A laugh.]
358
Parke
359
Examined by the
Lords
Lord Erskine
.—You have said, that notwithstanding the opportunities you have described of observation, you never saw any impropriety whatsoever in the conduct of her royal highness, or of Pergami and her royal highness towards each other? No, never on any occasion.
360
Mr. Solicitor General
submitted to their lordships whether the question could be put.
The question was waved.
Lord Ellenborongh
.—Did you ever observe any thing in the conduct of the princess of Wales towards Pergami, in her conduct, manners, conversation, or looks, to induce you to entertain an idea that there was an adulterous intercourse between them? Upon my honour I never saw the princess speak to Pergami hut on matters of business, though I was in the house for three months at once with them.
Earl of Darnley
.—Can you state to the House whether, in point of fact, orders for post-horses are preserved or not? I really do not know whether they are preserved; they are given before you set out from the city; as for instance, from Rome an order for post-horses is, I believe, equivalent to a passport, as in the case of the Queen; that order is delivered to the post-master, who without it would give you no horses at all; consequently the passport is of no use till you have obtained that order.
Earl of Liverpool
.—Are you aware, or do you now know the fact of Pergami being or not being a married man? I believe he is a married man, I do not know it.
361
Lord Chancellor
.—On the return of the princess from the Opera at Naples to herown house on the second night she was at Naples, do you know whether she retired to her chamber immediately, or where she went? Her royal highness retired to her own chamber: I was in waiting, shut the door, having made my bow, and went out; I believe her royal highness went to bed immediately.
Earl Bathurst
.—You have said you saw the princess and Pergami walking on the terrace, and that there were also workmen there; was that soon after your arrival at Naples? I have said before I am not quite clear as to the time, but I should think not the earlier part.
Lord Enniskillen
.—What was the hour of the night that the Queen returned from the Opera, and that you left her at her chamber-door? It must have been towards one o'clock at the time she got to her own door; very late indeed.
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Did you attend the princess of Wales to the Villa Brandi and Ruffinelli? I was with the princess of Wales perhaps three days at Ruffinelli; I then came back to Rome, and attended her to the Villa Brandi, where I staid with her all the time she was there, being about three months.
362
Earl, of Rosebery
,—Did you yourself observe whether the short dress her royal highness wore when she had that of a Grecian female was on her royal highness in the first character she assumed? It was impossible; it was only by being in the passage close to the door, when the door was opened, I saw the princess in that short dress upon which she fixed, as I imagined, and indeed as I am certain, all her other dresses.
A Peer
Lord Falmouth.
—You have stated that Louis Pergami has dined at table when you were present, how often may that circumstance have occurred? It has occurred several times, but sometimes he was on business of her royal highness, and then he was absent from home; when he was at home, I believe he generally dined there.
363
Mr. Solicitor General
Williams
Lord Brownlow
.—On those occasions, when the princess at the masquerade at Naples went upstairs to change her dress, do you know whether any attendant was there to assist in changing her dress, and if so, who was that attendant? To say the truth, I believe she had a very great number of attendants; the door was opened and shut perpetually, and every body was in and out of her room.
Earl of Lauderdale
.—When you were at Ruffinelli, do you recollect Pergami being ill at any time? No, I do not.
The Witness was directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, October 7.
The Order of the Day being read for the further Consideration and Second Reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act "to deprive her Majesty, &c." and for hearing Counsel for and against the same, Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then William Carrington
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Dr. Lushington, as follows:
364
365
The Attorney General
objected to this question, and, the witness having withdrawn from the bar, proceeded to argue against it. The question was, whether the witness had heard Majoochi say any tiling respecting baron Ompteda. He objected to any conversation between the witness and Majoochi, with respect to a third person, being taken as evidence. Whatever Majoochi had said of baron Ompteda could not be received as proof of any fact concerning that gentleman. Besides, he was not aware that Majoochi had stated himself to have had any conversation with the present witness; and unless he had been asked whether he had had any conversation with W. Carrington relative to baron Ompteda, no ground whatever was laid for the course of examination which he had interrupted. But, if even Majoochi had been asked such a question, still any conversation between him and the witness relative to the baron's conduct could prove nothing having any bearing on the case. In order, however, to justify the examination at all, he called upon his learned friends to show that Majoochi had been asked whether he had had a conversation with Carrington, and had denied his having any.
The Solicitor General
thought it quite clear that the question could not be put. Nothing was more fully admitted than that a witness could not be examined on conversations relative to facts collateral to the inquiry; and if the object was, to contradict the testimony of Majoochi, it had not been stated what question had been put to Majoochi which it was now wished to contradict. He apprehended that his learned friends were not entitled to refer to Majoochi's evidence in a general way, but that they must point out the particular statement they meant to disprove.
Dr. Lushington
trusted he should be
366
Lord Redesdale
interrupted the learned counsel, and moved that counsel do withdraw. The learned counsel had no right to pursue the course of examination he proposed. He could not impugn the conduct of baron Ompteda by conversations which had passed between the witness and another person.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that certainly that could not be done.
Lord Redesdale
said, the learned counsel was raising an argument on the subject of baron Ompteda's conduct; but he had no right to impugn any individual's character on a conversation between the witness and a third person. If he was prepared to show by evidence, that baron Ompteda's conduct had been such as he described, let him bring it forward. But to take the course he proposed to pursue at present, was to exceed those bounds of right and duly within which counsel ought to confine themselves.
Earl Grey
wished to remind their lordships of the state of the case. The question which the learned counsel proposed to put had been objected to on two grounds: first, that it was collateral to the inquiry; and secondly, that Majoochi had not been asked whether he had any conversation with the witness Carrington. Now, if he understood the particular point to which the learned counsel was replying when he was interrupted, it was the first ground of objection. He was going
367
Lord Redesdaie
explained. If evidence was to be obtained of what Majoochi had said of Ompteda, it ought to be sought from Majoochi, in the first instance, and not from the person with whom he bad conversed.
The Lord Chancellor
would not enter into the argument, but he confessed it was the first time in his life that he had witnessed an attempt to prove the conduct of a third person by a conversation which a former witness was alleged to have held with the witness under examination. Had Majoochi been questioned as to what he had said to the present witness, it would have been a different matter. As things stood, it would be necessary to look back to what had been stated by Majoochi on this subject.
The Earl of Lauderdale
referred their lordships to several pages in the Minutes, in which Majoochi had been examined with respect to his intercourse with baron Ompteda.
Lord Erskine
rose to order, and suggested that the counsel at the bar should refer to the pages of the Evidence.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that his noble and learned friend would not, perhaps, think him out of order when he knew on what account he referred to the evidence. He was of opinion that the question could be put. He wished to save her majesty's counsel the trouble of doing that by argument which was already done by evidence. In the pages of evidence to which he had referred, it would be seen that Majoochi was examined as to the imputed intrigues of baron Ompteda, and asked particularly, whether there was any talk among the household of the princess respecting the baron?
Lord Erskine
said, his noble and
368
The Counsel were again called in.
Dr. Lushington
proceeded with his argument. He said that, when their lordships interrupted him, he was about to add that he certainly never conceived that the declaration of Majoochi could be evidence of what Ompteda had done, but that he meant to show that the conduct of Ompteda was not collateral, but a direct point in issue. He was going on to state circumstances which in a subsequent stage of the proceedings it might be necessary to prove, namely, that locks had been picked, that doors had been forced, and that plots had existed; because that proof would be the means of explaining that part of the conduct of her majesty which had been made a ground of imputation. It would, for instance, account for her taking care that some of her male attendants, in whom she could place confidence, should sleep near her—for her taking care to have always a person near her on whose fidelity she could depend. He contended, that evidence for this purpose was admissible, as Majoochi had thought fit to deny the existence of any plot whatever, and when examined at different times, had also denied all knowledge of any locks having been picked. His evidence was surely open to contradiction on these points. Their lordships would see, in page 63 of the printed Minutes, what answers he had given to questions about this baron Ompteda. In the first place, he said, "I do not remember the name." He was then asked—
369
Non mi ricordos,
rectus in curia.
Mr. Brougham
said, that after the able
370
The Lord Chancellor
here interrupted the learned counsel, and said, that a great deal of time might have been saved if the counsel had stated the point to which his question tended. He would throw out for the consideration of the counsel, whether Majoochi having said that he had heard of a quarrel between Mr. Hownam and a German baron, but that he did not know the cause, they were not at liberty to ask what Majoochi had said to him, as to the cause of the quarrel?
Mr. Brougham
said, that there was perhaps a more important answer of Majoochi than those which his learned friend had pointed out. He had said he did not know what made him recollect the baron's coming to Villa Villani. If, therefore, he could show that he must have known, he apprehended that it was quite open for him to do so. He was perfectly aware that he should be stopped in the question, for, whenever the name of Ompteda was mentioned,
per fas aut nefas,
The Attorney General
objected to the style of his learned friend's argument, if argument it could be called, which, consisted principally in assertion. He was not aware that any objection had been taken, whenever baron Ompteda's name had been introduced, as to the propriety of introducing it. He believed it was a mere assertion of his learned friend to say so; but, if such objection had been taken, he doubted not it had been taken properly. He must oppose the manner in which his learned friend, Dr. Lushington, had argued the present question, because he had concluded it by stating, that it was a mere work of supererogation to shake Majoochi's evidence any further, it being already clear to every body that Majoochi was perjured. Such a decision was premature at present, and was one which it became their lordships only to make upon the conclusion of the case. He had never yet heard that a witness could be asked what another witness had said to him in the course of conversation, unless that witness had been first asked, whether he had ever said it to him or not. Now, as to this particular question, he wished to say a few words. The question which
371
372
Mr. Brougham
denied that he had argued that the facts against Ompteda could be proved by a conversation.
The Attorney General
said, his learned friend had taken up the argument in the same way as it had been taken up by Dr. Lushington, and had stated that the manner in which Dr. Lushington had argued it, prevented him from saying more.
Mr. Brougham
admitted that he had done so; but said he had added nothing to the argument of his learned friend.
The Lord Chancellor
viewed the question as being one of considerable importance. It was not to be forgotten, that the authority which had been mentioned was met by other authorities on the same subject. The question, as he understood it, was this:—"Whether A. B., a witness, being called for the plaintiff in a case, and being asked if he knew of a quarrel between two individuals, and answering that he had heard of a quarrel, but did not know the cause of it; and on cross-examination not being asked whether he had made a declaration to C. D. regarding the cause; the question was, whether or not C. D. could be called to contradict him by proving the contrary, the witness not having been asked if he had held such conversation with that person." This question should be submitted to the Judges, and after they had advised, the House would be better able to decide the question.
373
Lord Erskine
agreed with his noble and learned friend in thinking, that the whole course of examination which counsel now proposed to pursue, must be built upon what Majoochi had said in his former examination, but differed from him when he said, that the present question appeared to him to be such as could not be allowed. He thought that her majesty's counsel had a right in their questions, not merely to refer to what Majoochi formerly said, but with such commentaries as they might think the nature of his evidence required. Their lordships were to look in the Minutes to what Majoochi had previously stated. Counsel proposed to show, by a conversation which had taken place between Majoochi and the witness, that what Majoochi had there stated could not be true, and that Majoochi must have known at the time he stated it, that it could not be true. In his idea, that line of examination was perfectly allowable. If, however, his noble and learned friend wished to have the point decided by the Judges, he had no objection. The House, however, were the real judges of it; and it was for them to decide whether the question, on which so much discussion had arisen, should be put to the witness or not.
Mr. Brougham
begged to suggest, that, conceiving, from the intimation made to the counsel, the opinion of the House to be with him, he had not finished his argument, and requested permission now to conclude.
The Attorney General
objected to his learned friend being heard any further upon the subject, after having spoken to it so often.
The Lord Chancellor
informed the counsel, that the House, upon consideration of the importance of the question, would be ready to hear every thing that could be urged; and therefore were willing to hear the Attorney-general of the Queen, Mr. Attorney-general being at liberty to be heard in reply.
Mr. Brougham
continued his argument. Past all doubt, nothing that Majoochi had said to this witness could be received as proof of any thing that Ompteda had done. But Majoochi having said, in answer to five or six questions on a particular point,
Non mi ricordo,
374
375
ex consensu omnium
The Attorney General
said, that he should only be trespassing on their lordships time if he replied at any length to what had been stated by his learned friends on the other side. He had already answered it, and he thought their lordships would not be better satisfied if he were to repeat it. But, to come to the evidence, the witness had been asked, if, while he was in the house, a quarrel had not taken place between a certain baron and lieut. Hownam? To which he answered, that he had heard of a quarrel, but that he did not know the cause. Now, my learned friends say, they can prove that he did know it, and they propose to prove his knowledge by a conversation which he had with this witness some years ago. But, he said that they could not, in fairness to the witness, and by the rule of
376
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Lord Ershine
put a case—that a witness had made a declaration, of which the counsel, at the time of the cross-examination, was not aware, and upon which he therefore could not examine, but that it afterwards came, in the course of the trial, to his knowledge: would it be said, that for that reason, in a court which was established for the discovery of truth, the truth should not be discovered? Above all, would it be said that such a circumstance should prevent the discovery of truth in a case of such paramount importance as the present? Whatever might be the opinion of the learned Judges upon this question, he should still feel himself bound to act upon his own judgment. The fact now sought to be established was of too important a nature to be defeated by an objection so purely technical. If their lordships wished to avoid the embarrassment of a possible dissent from the decision of the learned Judges, he saw no reason why Majoochi might not be called again, and confronted with the other witnesses. This he had often seen done in the course of his long practice. He would not believe that questions were inadmissible which were calculated to elicit the truth. As a peer of parliament, he should certainly give it as his opinion that this evidence might be received.
The Lord Chancellor
thought the qucx-
377
Earl Grey
said, that even if the opinion of the learned Judges should be against I them, he should wish, for the sake of justice, that the question should be put. The noble lord on the woolsack had suggested a mode of proceeding which would save time, and get rid of the present difficulty, which had arisen from an omission in the examination of Majoochi. Majoochi might now be called in and asked, "Did you hold any conversation with Carrington about baron Ompteda?" If this could be done, it would be the most convenient mode of proceeding.
The Earl of Liverpool
had no objection to the production of Majoochi; but thought that, if the Judges were applied to, the House ought to adopt their opinion. It would be much better to con-
378
Lord Erikine
said, he never meant to assert that, if the Opinion of the Judges should be in the negative on the questions, the House ought to neglect it. He merely meant to express his own dissent from it.
The Marquis of Lansdown
thought the better way would be to ask counsel on both sides whether they had any objection to Majoochi's being called.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he had no difficulty whatever.
The Attorney General
addressed their lordships. He felt in a very awkward situation, and he would tell the House why. Their lordships would recollect that Majoochi had been already examined three times in the course of the proceedings. The option was given to his learned friends whether they would proceed then or not with any further re-examination. They had declined doing so, and had preferred the delay which had taken place, in order to open their case. If they suffered the proposed course to be taken in this case, knowing as they did the law upon the subject, it was their lordships' duty to be prepared for the consequences. If it were done in this case, it might be done with respect to every witness at their lordships' bar.
The Lord Chancellor
here interrupted the attorney-general. He did not apprehend that the House wished the learned gentleman to argue the case; but were desirous that he should state simply, as he was perfectly authorized to do, whether or no he withheld his consent.
The Attorney General
stated, that he did not, under the circumstances, feel authorized to give a consent; that he must leave it in the hands of their lordships.
379
Then the following Questions were proposed to the-learned Judges:
1st."If in the courts below a witness examined in chief on the part of the plaintiff being asked, whether he remembered a quarrel taking place between A. and B., answered that be heard of a quarrel between them, but he did not know the cause of it; and such witness was not asked, upon his cross-examination, whether be had or had not made a declaration, stated in the question, touching the cause of it; and, in the progress of the defence, the counsel for the defendant proposed to examine a witness to prove that the other witness had made such a declaration to him, touching the cause of such quarrel, in order to prove his knowledge of the cause of the quarrel, according to the practice of the courts below, would such proof be received?"
2dly. "If in the courts below a witness examined in chief on the part of the plaintiff being asked, whether he remembered a quarrel taking place between A. and B., answered, that he did not remember it, and such witness was not asked, on his cross-examination, whether he had or had not made a declaration, stated in the question respecting such quarrel; and in the progress of the defence the counsel for the defendant proposed to examine a witness to prove that the other witness bad made such a declaration, in order to prove that he must remember it; according to the practice of the courts below would such proof be received?"
The Questions were delivered to the Lord Chief Justice, and the learned judges craving leave to withdraw to consider them, leave was granted accordingly, and they withdrew.
Then the Right Hon. Lady
Charlotte Lindsay
Lord Chancellor.
—Has your ladyship searched for that letter referred to yesterday? Yes, I have.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Can your ladyship state the grounds of your brother's request, as made in that letter?
Mr. Brougham
prayed leave to submit, through the House, that this was a question which could not be put.
380
Mr. Brougham
prayed leave to submit, through the House, whether the terms of this question were correct.
John Whitcombe.
The Earl of Lauderdale
objected to the examination of another witness proceeding in the absence of the Judges, who ought to be present, the better to be enabled to consider any question arising out of the evidence, or the application of evidence, which might be referred to them.
Lord Holland
thought that his noble friend entirely misunderstood the object of the presence of the learned Judges. Difficulties were very properly and wisely propounded to them, under particular circumstances; and, with great wisdom, their assistance bad been asked. They sat there for this reason—that questions might arise in their lordships' minds, upon the evidence given at the bar, which might require the assistance of the Judges in order to solve. These were questions of law, and of proceedings in law; and the Judges ought, in his humble opinion, to dismiss entirely from their minds what evidence they might have heard at the bar, and strictly apply themselves to the dry question referred to them. Conse-
381
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that during the period of his attendance in that House, in all cases the Judges had been present while the evidence was being given.
Lord Holland
thought, after the explanation of his noble friend, that the practice which was contended for was still more dangerous than he had apprehended. For his own part, not only did he not think that the evidence stated at their lordships' bar was to have any bearing upon the minds of the Judges, but he thought that the questions argued at that bar ought never to be referred to them. They were not to give an opinion upon the arguments of counsel; they were to state points of law, and the construction of acts of parliament; and their assistance was intended for the preservation of their lordships' own character, importance, and dignify. The applications and references to be made to them by their lordships ought to be so framed as to bring out the clear opinion of the Judges upon them, but still with as little reference as possible to the proceeding or the evidence before the House; so that in fact it became their lordships rather to exercise their ingenuity in so framing them, as to hide their connexion with such proceeding or evidence. He really thought that, instead of the Judges sitting, as they now did, upon the woolsack, it would be just as well in effect, and perhaps more consistent: with strict legal propriety, if they gave the House the benefit of their aid in an adjoining chamber; so that any matter to be put to them must necessarily be exempt from the influence of any evidence, or of the discussions sustained by learned counsel. He thought it would be loss of time not to proceed with the examination of witnesses, when the question was so long under consideration by the Judges.
The Earl of Liverpool
would say a few words, because they were now adopting a mode different from that of their former proceedings. With respect to any doubts connected with those proceedings, which might (but which, he trusted, would not) arise, those he should desire to refer to
382
Lord Erskine
thought that the proposition of lord Lauderdale went much too far.
Then John Whitcombe
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Tindal, as follows:
383
The Solicitor General
objected to the question: it was impossible not to see the object intended; he did not, however, consider it necessary for him to argue such a question. It could not be legally put.
Mr. Tindal
said, he had no wish to put the question further.
The Lord Chancellor.
—I think Mr. Tindal you have put it as far as you could.
384
Mr. Solicitor General.
385
Lord Erskine
said, he had something to ask the witness, but for the present he must withdraw from the bar. The witness having withdrawn, the noble and learned lord said, that, before he proceeded to put some questions to the last witness, he begged particularly to call their lordships' attention to the matter out of which the questions he meant to put arose. For this purpose he should beg leave to read,
386
The Earl of Liverpool
wished the noble lord to state what precise question he meant to put to the witness?
Lord Erskine
replied, that he meant to ask him, whether he spent any part of any night, or the whole of any night, in the room of Louisa Demont, when she was there and in bed?
The Solicitor General
begged leave with all respect to say, that that question could not be put. When Louisa Demont was examined, it was impossible not to foresee that the object of his learned friends, in putting certain questions to the witness, was either to insinuate or to prove that some person had slept with Demont. It was, he thought, a clear and undeniable point of law, that a witness could not be asked if she had committed an immoral act, or, if asked such a question, be compelled to give an answer, if she objected to it. It was equally clear and incontrovertible, as a point of law, that if the I witness thought proper to answer the question, and deny the fact attempted to be insinuated, that it would be incompetent for the party to negative her denial by proof. If he was right in that position of law, which he thought incontrovertible, then he submitted to their lordships, that they could not suffer that to be obtained circuitously, or by a side-wind, which could not be attempted openly and plainly. This he affirmed to be the undoubted construction of the law, as administered in the courts below. He stated it with the utmost possible submission to the noble and learned lord, for whose experience, knowledge, and talents, he had a profound
387
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Lord Erskine
said, he remained unconvinced that his question ought not to be put; for be thought not only that the question he was putting to this witness might have been put to Demont, but also that she might have been legally asked whether Whitcombe had ever slept with her. He affirmed that that might have been done. It was a course which he had himself often pursued at the king's bar; be had repeatedly asked a witness questions which went to show his criminality. He was perfectly ready to admit, that the witness was not bound to answer; but if be answered, what reason was there to take that answer as conclusive, and not to be shaken by other testimony? He remembered that once he had insisted upon sifting such a question: it was objected to, and he tendered a bill of exceptions, which bill he was not under the necessity of arguing; it went to all the reason of the Judges, and received the assent of the most eminent men at the bar whom he had consulted on the occasion. He had over and over again put such questions. He should state what passed in conversation between himself and lord Ellenborough at the time. For that noble lord's learning and abilities he had ever entertained the greatest deference and respect. Suppose, said he (lord Erskine), to lord Ellenborough, that you had been taking a walk among the new improvements in the neighbourhood of Bloomsbury-square, and that some fellow dared to charge you with the commission of a crime, which, if proved, would justly degrade you in the eyes of the world. I know that when the charge was made, the first thing you would do, perhaps, would be, to send for me, to undertake your defence. Suppose that we had every reason to believe the fellow who made the charge to be a scoundrel, false and wicked enough to make it with the view to extort money. The examination, we will suppose, commenced. I said to the fellow, "Who are you, sir?—A captain of a ship. Of what
388
The Lord Chancellor
begged to state td the House what he knew of the practice in the courts below. When he first came into Westminster-hall, which was between forty and fifty years ago, the constant practice of the Judges was, when a question of a criminatory nature was put to a witness, to inform him that he was not bound to answer the question: that practice was, he understood, of late years discontinued, and the more modern practice, as the rule was laid down in the textbooks, was, that a question of the nature he alluded to, might be put to a witness, though he was not compelled to answer, if he did not please. The rule also went further, for it was laid down, that if the
389
Lord Erskine
said, he could not concur in any practice which had the effect of shutting out evidence capable of throwing a light upon the testimony of a witness. Questions might still be shaped so as to sift the matter in controversy without violating the rules of evidence practised in the courts below.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that though he felt little interest in the way in which the point was decided, yet still he could not see how the House could sift this matter to the bottom by getting that answer from the last witness which it was evidently the object to elicit from him. Demont might be called again; and yet, notwithstanding this contradiction, she might be able to reconcile what the witness stated with the evidence she had herself previously given. She might say she had admitted this person to her chamber, and still persevere in saying she had never slept the whole, or any part, of a night with any body, for that was what her answer literally stated. How was it possible to go farther than this, if both witnesses were re-examined?
Lord Erskine
said, that his object was merely to show a contradiction of the same fact in the testimony of these witnesses. He meant to go no farther.
Lord Redesdale
said, that if the witness demurred to the question, it was impossible to carry it farther. Whether a man slept with her was certainly a different question from that which she had already answered.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that where a disagreement as to the mode of examining a witness occurred, the decision should always be vested in the wisdom of the Judges.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the construction evidently and plainly put upon
390
The Marquis of Buckingham
thought it of very great importance that the rules of law should be preserved unimpaired, and that at the same time all the facts should be elicited from witnesses. He thought that, where a doubt arose upon a question, it ought not to be put until the sense of the House was taken upon it.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he was quite sure his noble and learned friend would not put a question until he saw that the sense of the House was with the propriety of putting it.
Lord Erskine
replied, that he could not know how to anticipate the objections of the House; nor could he well say beforehand what precise questions he might put. It was obvious that his questions must, after the first, depend upon the answers of the witness, of which he could have no foreknowledge.
The Counsel and the Witness were again called in. The Witness was asked:
Lord Erskine.
—Where did you sleep in the house at Naples during the time you were there? In a small room next the hon. Keppel Craven.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—You have been six years in Mr. Keppel Craven's service? Yes, I have.
391
Lord Hood.
—Were you ever in Demont's bed-room, after having gone into lodgings from the house at which you had first been? Yes, frequently.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords, the Judges have considered the questions proposed to them by your lordships; one of those questions is in these words, "If in the courts below a witness examined in chief on the part of the plaintiff being asked, whether he remembered a quarrel taking place between A. and B., answered, that he did not remember it, and such witness was not asked, on his cross-examination, whether he had or had not made a declaration stated in the question respecting such quarrel; and in the progress of the defence the counsel for the defendant proposed to examine a witness to prove that the other witness had made such a declaration, in order to prove that he must remember it; according to the practice of the courts below, would such proof be received?"
392
393
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that every noble lord must have carefully attended to the opinion just delivered, and to the language in which ii was expressed. It appeared that, by the practice of the Courts below, the question might be regarded as objectionable, and their lordships would remember their own resolution of conforming generally to that practice.
Lord Holland
thought the reasons stated by the learned judge completely satisfactory.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that, in strict form, the examination now about to be pursued ought to be conducted by the court. If the learned counsel would have the goodness to represent to him the questions he wished to put, he would himself state them to the witness.
Then Teodoro Majoochi
was again called in, and examined by the lords as follows, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
394
Mr. Brougham
requested to be permitted to put a question to the witness with a view to his having said so to any person generally.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he proposed to ask that question, not as applying to the witness having said this to other persons, but lest any difficulty should arise from his hereafter saying that he had said so, but did not know the person to whom the questions had referred.
Mr. Brougham.
—"Did you ever see the baron Ompteda? I do not remember that name.
Then William Carrington
was again called in, and farther examined by Dr. Lushington, as follows:
395
Dr. Lushington.
—Did Majoochi tell you that Ompteda had employed some one to get the keys belonging to the princess at Como, in order to get false ones made? He did.
Mr. Attorney General.
396
397
398
Lushington.
Lords.
Marquis of Buckingham.
—You state that you have been a midshipman in the king's service? Yes.
399
Lord Ellenborough.
—Where is Ruffinelli? It is about four miles from Rome.
400
Earl of Lauderdale.
—You have said that you saw Louis Pergami at the time this conversation took place between you and Majoochi? Yes.
Marquis of Huntley.
—In what ship did you serve in the navy? I was with sir John Beresford in the Poictiers.
A Peer
—What was the first year you went to Italy? I think in 1814.
The Earl of Liverpool.
—You say that Teodoro Majoochi told this story first in the servants-hall: state particularly the names of the servants who were there; were those the servants you saw either before or afterwards at the Villa Brandi? I saw them at the Villa Brandi afterwards.
Earl of Rosebery.
—Can you repeat in Italian the particular phrase Majoochi made use of, with reference to speaking of baron Ompteda? I can a little, I think.
401
Earl of Rosebery.
—Can you swear to the accuracy of those latter words "come un cane"?—Yes, I can.
Earl of Darnley.
—You have staled the distance from the Villa Ruffinelli to Rome to be four miles; what miles do you mean? I mean Roman miles, or geographical miles.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Do you, recollect whether there are any measures of distance corresponding with mile-stones on the road? I do not recollect any mile-stones; it is generally called so.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Is Frascati near to Ruflinelli? It is about half a mile, or a quarter of a mile.
Earl of Hurrowby.
—You have staled that Majoochi had held some conversation in the
402
Earl of Rosebery.
—Wits the conversation in the servants hail, and the conversation in the yard upon that subject, held on the same day? No, it was not.
Marquis of Buckingham
—Did you ever mention this to sir William Cell? I did, after I had read the evidence.
Marquis of Loudsdown.
—Did you take any part in the conversation with Majoochi, respecting Ompteda, when you heard him mention it In the servants hall? I did not take any part further than giving car to it; but he told me more particularly in the yard.
A Peer.
—You have given in Italian some part of what Majoochi told you can you give in the original Halian words, the way in which he began his conversation, what were the Italian words? Avete inteso cosa ha detto il gente de la servizio di aflare de Ompteda.
Earl of Enniskillen.
—You were a midshipman on hoard the Poictiers? Yes.
Marquis of Buckingham.
—You mentioned this mailer to Mr. Vizard after you had read the evidence given by Majoochi? I did.
403
Duke of Clarence.
—Did you go by the same name when you were on board the Poictiers as you do now? I did.
Lord Colville.
—Have you any certificate from sir John Beresford of your service under his command? I had it, but I have not it now.
Lord Enniskillen.
—What countrymen are you? An Englishman.
Duke of Clarence.
—Having stated that you
404
Then John Jacob Sicard
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Brougham, as follows:
405
406
407
Mr. Solicitor General.
l.
408
409
410
l.
l.
l.
Brougham.
Lords.
Lord Ellenborough.
—When Pergami was first taken into the princess of Wales's service, were you desired to make any inquiries into his character? None, because the marquis of Ghisiliari recommended him for the whole.
411
Earl of Donoughmore.
—You have said that you engaged Pergami for her royal highness's service without having had any previous communication upon the subject with her royal highness? I did.
412
Lord Cathcart.
—You are understood to have stated, that upon the arrival of her royal highness at Naples the first apartment allotted to Pergami was over the apartment of lady Elizabeth Forbes? It was.
Lord Grantham.
—You have said that till the time of getting to Naples, William Austin usually slept in the princess of Wales's apartment? Yes.
413
Earl of Darlington.
—How long were you in her royal highness's suite, or rather in her household, after she left this country in 1814? Until the 15th of February 1815, when I left Naples.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Can you state, from your knowledge, whether at Naples the princess of Wales breakfasted alone with Pergami? Never, never to my knowledge.
414
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Do you recollect the princess, the night after you went to Naples, going to the Opera? I recollect her royal highness going to the Opera.
415
Earl of Harrowby.
—If you are understood in your description of the house at Naples, a person wishing to go from the apartment of the princess to Pergami's room might do so by going through a passage, and then through a email cabinet, and then to Pergami's room? As far as I can recollect that is exactly the case.
Earl of Rosslyn
—Were there not two ways by which a person could go from Pergami's room to that of the princess, one by a public passage, another by a smaller passage, and the cabinet? Yes, that is exactly the case.
416
Marquis of Buckingham
—If a person had gone from Pergami's room to the princess's, by the public passage, must he not have passed by the doors of the rooms in which Dr. Holland and other members of the suite slept? Yes.
Lord Calthorpe
—During the time that you were travelling on the comment in the service of her royal highness, had you no opportunities at all of observing the manners and appearance of other couriers? I had but one with us.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, October 9, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive Her Majesty, &c, and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Henry Holland
M. D. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Wilde as follows:
417
418
Mr. Solicitor General
419
420
421
Wilde
422
Lords
Lord Erskine
—Referring to the whole time, and to all the places in which you have stated you were attending upon her royal highness, did you ever observe any indecent, immodest, or improper behaviour in her royal highness? I did not.
Earl Grey
—Have you at any time observed, on the part of her royal highness, any conduct calculated to bring disgrace upon the character of this country? I believe I can answer decidedly not.
Earl of Lauderdale
—Did you attend Pergami during his short illness at Naples? I did.
423
Lord Grantham
—A former witness has staled, that upon the same floor where the princess's room and yours and Pergami's rooms were, there was a place used as a water-closet; do you-recollect that place? I do not.
A Peer
—Did you ever see her royal highness and Pergami together after Pergami was raised to the rank of chamberlain? I never did.
Earl of Lauderdale
—Do you know whether there was a cabinet adjoining to Pergami's room? From my recollection, opposite to the door of Pergami's room, there was a door into a small room, which may be called a cabinet or not.
Lord Kingston
—Do you, of your own knowledge, know any thing of the Queen for the last six years? I believe the time since I quitted her royal highness's service was five years exactly in June last.
Lord Rous
—To whom did you dedicate the book of travels which you have published? There was no dedication.
424
Earl of Rosebery
—Do you recollect the princess coming into Pergami's bed-room at the time you were dressing his foot during his illness? Certainly she did not.
Lord Redesdale
—Did you ever attend any others of the princess's suite at Naples during your stay there; besides Pergami? I did.
Earl of Liverpool
—When the princess of Wales introduced the countess Oldi to you, did she introduce her or not as Pergami's sister? She did not.
Lord Dynevor
—In what language did the princess of Wales and madame Oldi converse? As far as I can recollect the circumstance, the princess spoke some words of Italian; whether the countess of Oldi spoke French or not I do not know.
Earl of Harrowby
—Did you ever hear the princess and countess Oldi converse together in French? I do not recollect it.
425
Lord Auckland
—Did the language of countess Oldi differ more from pure Italian than the English language spoken by some Scotch persons of education and family differ from pure English? I find it impossible from the small recollection I have, to answer that question.
Lord Chancellor
—Did Pergami ever dine at her royal highness's table when you dined there? Never.
Lord Calthorpe
—Do you recollect her royal highness ever, upon any occasion, having expressed herself dissatisfied with the situation of her house at Genoa? I do not remember her royal highness having made such expression; but I do recollect her royal highness at one time going to see another house in the neighbourhood of Genoa, which I understood, for the moment, she thought of taking. She did not take it.
426
Lord Chancellor
—Did any of those principal servants, whom you mentioned in answer to the question last but two, dine at the Queen's table? None.
Then Charles Mills,
esq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Denman, as follows:
427
428
The Attorney General
objected to this question, as being not only a leading question, but one entirely travelling out of the point of inquiry.
Mr. Denman,
with much animation, contended for the propriety of the question he had put. Did not the bill, he asked, both in letter and in spirit, arraign her majesty's conduct in public and in private? did it not
429
The Attorney General
said, he did not mean to restrict his learned friend from going into any inquiry which he deemed material—he only objected to his proceeding to question the witness in so leading and so general a manner.
Mr. Brougham
denied that the question just put was a leading one. Her majesty's conduct was generally impugned by the bill, and he wanted to show that it was unjustly impugned. This witness had competent means of forming an opinion.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he certainly saw no objection to the question being put; but he could not help suggesting to the learned counsel who put it, whether, if evidence on the one side of general conduct, without touching on the special charge, were admitted, it would not be open to the other side also to adduce evidence as to general conduct?
Mr. Attorney General
430
431
Re-examined by Mr.
Denman
Had you the honour of being acquainted with her royal highness before she left England? I had.
Examined by the
Lords
A. Peer
—Did you feel any objection to sitting down to table with Pergami? I cannot say that I did.
Earl Grey
—You are understood to have said you usually reside at Rome? I have said so.
Earl of Liverpool
—In the year 1817, when you were in the habit of visiting her royal highness at Rome, did you see any English lady in her society? At the period of the year that her royal highness came to Rome, there were but few English. I do not remember to have seen any English lady.
Earl of Mansfield
—Do you know whether any application was made for a passport, to the government of Rome, by her majesty the Queen of England? I know that application was made to the British consul for a passport.
Lord Falmouth
—When you dined or supped in company with the countess Oldi, were you introduced to her? I was introduced to her the first time I saw her.
Lord Ellenborough
—Was the language of the countess Oldi grammatically correct? I am not able to answer that question; I do not consider myself sufficiently versed in the Italian language to answer that question certainly,
432
Earl Grey
—How long have you been in England? I arrived in May.
Then Joseph Teuillé
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario.
433
comme un honnête homme
Cross-examined by Mr.
Parke
Did you know Pergami when he was in a prison at Lodi? I never heard any thing of it.
You say that he was in the household of general Pino, was he not a servant in general Pino's family? He was as confidential courier (
particulier
[
To the Interpreter.
particulier"?
[
To the Witness.
434
He was a courier particularly attached to general Pino, as a person of trust or confidence
You did not see any thing of Pergami between the year 1808 or 1809, when you saw him in the service of general Pino? No.
At what period in the year 1808 or 1809, was it you saw him in the service of general Pino? I have already stated that I do not particularly recollect the year; it was when general Pino's division was marching towards Barcelona.
Can you say at what time of the year it was? It was at the beginning of winter.
You cannot say whether that was the beginning of the winter of 1808 or 1809? I cannot precisely slate the period; I know it was the beginning of winter.
How long had you an opportunity of seeing him in general Pino's service? As a division does not always remain together, a brigade which was detached from the rest of the division; that being the case, I cannot say exactly how long he remained where I was.
Was the army in march at the time you knew him? We were not actually in march, but we were about to move in order to pass the river Fluvia.
Did you see whether Pergami was in a courier's dress or not? Always in common clothes.
Have you been in England before you were here this time? Never.
When did you come to London? I first came to London nearly six weeks ago, or a month and a half ago.
Have you remained in England ever since you came? The first time I remained in England twenty days.
Where did you go afterwards? To Paris, where I am established.
Did you remain at Paris, or did you go anywhere else? I never moved from Paris, for we cannot quit that place without leave from the general of division and the minister of war.
Were you at Beauvais when you went to Paris? In going to Paris I was with a messenger; the road to Paris is through Beauvais, but it so happens that that town is passed at night, because it is with a messenger who never stops.
Do you know a person of the name of Rossi who comes from Lugano? I know a family of the name of Rossi who are of Lugano.
Did you see that person either at Beauvais or at Paris? I saw him once at Paris.
Was that when you were at Paris the last time? No, it was previously to my coming to England the first time.
435
How long ago is that? It was previously to my coming it may be between two and a half and three months ago.
Had Rossi any persons with him that were coming from Lugano? I do not know.
Had he any persons with him at the time you saw him? He was alone, there was nobody with him.
Had you heard of the tumult that had occurred at Dover at that time? I read the account of it in the French papers.
Did you communicate that to Rossi? No, there was nothing mentioned of that.
At no time at Paris? I never spoke of it to him, because I saw him but once, and that was only for a quarter of an hour at the most.
That was the only time you saw him? It was the only lime; and I only remained with him, perhaps, a quarter of an hour.
Who applied to you to come here? The Queen, by a letter of her's.
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Cathcart.
—At the time the first hussars were in the brigade commanded by your brother, what was the rank next above that of a private hussar? The first or lowest degree is the common hussar, then comes brigadier, or corporal, then mareschal de logis, that is not the same thing as a quarter-master.
436
Then Carlo Forti
was called in; and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Brougham, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto, as follows:
437
438
439
Mr. Attorney General,
440
441
442
443
To the Interpreter
To the Witness
444
445
Brougham.
Lords.
Lord Erskine.
—During the whole time you were in her royal highness's service in the manner you have described to the House, did you ever observe any part of her royal highness's behaviour immodest or indecent, either regarding Pergami or any other man? Never, but always with much respect when he spoke to her royal highness.
Lord Ellenbororgh.
—Were you travelling alone when this accident at Storta happened? I was travelling together with the cousin of Pergami.
446
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Do you know the countess Oldi's husband? I do not.
Lord Prudhoe.
—In what month did the princess go from Rome to Sinigaglia? In the month of August.
Then Lieutenant John Flinn
of the Royal Navy was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Denman, as follows:
447
448
449
Mr. Solicitor-General.
450
451
Lord Erskine
objected to the mode of examination pursued by the learned counsel. If the witness were not allowed to refresh his recollection by his memoranda, it was unfair to tax his memory in the way attempted. All would probably he clear by reference to the paper in the hand of the witness.
The Lord Chancellor
asked, if the witness had offered to look at the paper.
The Solicitor General
observed, that the memorandum offered by the witness was merely a copy of some previous entry in the log-book, and made during a subsequent voyage. He submitted, therefore, that it could not be produced.
Lord Erskine
added, that if the witness were not allowed to refresh his memory, the counsel was bound to take it with its defects, but not to tax it as he had done.
The Lord Chancellor
seemed to be of opinion, that if the memorandum were not produced, the counsel had a right to tax the memory of the witness.
The Earl of Liverpool
explained, that as the memorandum had not been made at the time of the transaction, in his view it could I not be employed by the witness for the purpose of refreshing his memory.
The Marquis of Lansdown
remarked, that the question was not whether the memorandum should be received in evidence, but whether a copy of the original, which original he understood to have been made at the time, might be used by the witness to refresh his memory, as to dates.
The Earl of Harrowby
did not think that the witness had yet stated that even the original was made at the time of the transaction to which it referred.
The Lord Chancellor
read the following sentence from Phillipps's Law of Evidence:—"To assist his memory, a witness may use a written entry in a book, or a memorandum, or a copy of a memorandum, such entry and memorandum having been made at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately afterwards." Therefore, if the witness swore that the original memorandum was made at the time, and that what he employed was an accurate copy of the original, it seemed to him that it might be used to refresh his memory.
Earl Grey
said, the easiest and most simple way was, to call on the witness, and to ask him as to the nature of the paper he held in his hand. If it should appear that he made an entry at the time, and that the paper was a true and faithful copy of that memorandum, no doubt he could refresh his memory from it.
The Earl of Harrowby
suggested, that part of the witness's evidence should be read from the Minutes, which was accordingly done.
452
Lord Chancellor.
—Where did you make those orignal papers that you spoke of? The papers were made on board the vessel which I commanded.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Have you looked at that memorandum since you have been out of this House? No, I have not.
453
454
455
456
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, October 10, 1820.
As soon as the House had been called over,
Earl Grosvenor
rose to pall the attention
457
The Lord Chancellor
said, if he took upon himself to reply to the noble earl, their lordships would allow him to say, that he did so because the proposition just submitted to their lordships in the present stage of the proceedings now in progress, appeared to him one of the most extraordinary steps he had ever witnessed. He would take the liberty to say, that when the learned counsel at the bar announced his determination to prosecute one of the witnesses in support of the bill, for perjury, he had gone further than he ought to have done in that stage of the proceedings. And to him it appeared that the noble earl had at present no right to talk of the probability of prosecutions for perjury being instituted against more than one of the witnesses. On that probability
458
Earl Grosvenor
wished it to be borne in mind, notwithstanding the impropriety which had been suggested to him by the noble and learned lord, that he had only stated an hypothetical case. He had stated, that there was an individual among the witnesses who had been threatened with prosecution, and that others might be prosecuted; and in this, as far as he might judge, from the evidence of his ears, he was fully borne out. He could not help thinking it a matter of considerable importance. It was said, that the step he had taken was extraordinary; that it was anticipating the conclusion; but their lordships would recollect, that in an earlier stage of the proceedings in this particular case, the learned lord on the woolsack had thought it right that the House should declare it would throw no impediment in the way of prosecution for perjury. This had taken place some weeks ago; yet they had been given to understand that this was the first time such a question had been agitated. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it might be desirable that a bill like that which he had suggested, should pass, in addition to the determination to which they had already come, not to interpose their powers to screen any individual from punishment.
The Lord Chancellor
remarked, their lordships would surely see the mighty difference between laying down a rule for the purpose of obtaining true evidence, before any witness had been examined, and that of adopting a particular measure with respect to certain individuals pending the proceedings. The witnesses might have sworn falsely, for aught he knew; but on that he had no right to give
459
The Earl of Liverpool
could not approve of the course which had been suggested by the noble earl, and thought, with the lord chancellor, that there was a vast difference between such a measure adopted at this stage of the proceedings, and a general rule laid down at their commencement, previous to the examination of a single witness.
Lord Melville
said, he was persuaded their lordships would concur with him in thinking, that when a witness had been cross-examined, he ought not, except on strong grounds, to be subjected to a further examination. He was sorry to interrupt the course of the proceedings, but circumstances had come to his knowledge with respect to William Carrington, one of the witnesses examined on Saturday, which, in his judgment, made it highly important that that witness should be again brought to their lordships' bar, either immediately or as soon as the witness then under examination had retired. He thought it desirable that the counsel on both sides should be put in possession of the questions intended to be asked with little delay, that they might be prepared to address themselves to that part of the case. He should move that William Carrington do attend at their lordships' bar.
Earl Grey
thought it might be the more convenient course to bring up the witness for further examination, when the remainder of the case had been gone through with.
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that before the Summing-up of the counsel for the Queen, the counsel for the bill would be asked if they had any evidence to rebut the evidence for the defence. Then they would have a right to offer such evidence as they might be able to produce. The question now was, whether the particular individual should be called in when they arrived at the conclusion of the case, or forthwith. He was inclined to adopt the latter course.
The Earl of Lauderdale
did not know the nature of the questions intended to be put to the witness, but the House would remember, that her majesty's counsel had been allowed more than once to call a witness back; and if this had been granted to
460
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, he could form no opinion on the subject, because he had no adequate idea of the questions intended to be asked; but he thought it rested with the noble lord to say when the witness should be recalled. The questions to be put were not to be put from one side or the other, in this cause; but were to be put by a noble lord for the information of the Court. He, for his own part, thought the sooner the Court was put in possession of this information the better.
Lord Melville
did not say, that the necessity of the case required the instant examination of the witness; he would only say, that it was, in his opinion, highly expedient that the particular witness alluded to should be examined without much delay. He then moved, that William Carrington should be ordered to attend to be examined at their lordships' bar this day.
Then Lieutenant John Flinn,
of the royal navy, was called in, and farther cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General, as follows:
461
Mr. Denman
interposed; and, after the witness had withdrawn, observed, that the solicitor-general had no right to assume that the witness had said he gave orders. When a witness was asked, whether he meant to say so and so, it was intended to be insinuated that he had said something like it; whereas the witness had said, that the captain generally gave the orders.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it struck him the witness put a different construction on the terms navigating, management, and manœuvring the ship; and he conceived that the questions the witness had been asked had been put for the purpose of ascertaining what he meant by the words, "navigating the ship."
The Witness was again called in.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—What do you mean by saying that you navigated the ship? By navigating the ship, such as directing the
462
463
The Lord Chancellor
immediately ordered the windows to be thrown open, and said that he had heard with much surprise, yesterday, that some of the officers of the house had said it was by his wish the windows were kept shut. Now, he had never expressed any such wish, but was most anxious to have the ventilation of the house kept up as much as possible.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Having told us in a former part of your examination, that Pasquali was not a servant of yours, and having now told us he was a servant of yours, which of these two stories do you mean to adhere to? I mean to adhere that he acted as both.
464
Mr. Brougham
desired that the memorandum might be in the hands of the witness, to enable him to answer the questions, and not in the hands of the solicitor-general.
465
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Brougham
said, that the common use of a memorandum in a court of justice was, for a witness, by referring to it, to refresh his recollection from the contents. But his learned friend, instead of suffering the witness to do that which it was the proper and ordinary course to let him do, kept the document himself, and proceeded,
seriatim,
The Solicitor General
denied that this was in any degree a similar case to that in which their lordships had laid down the rule referred to by his learned friend. He also denied that he was questioning the witness, in the manner objected to, out of this document. He certainly looked into it, as he believed he was entitled to do, while the witness perused it in his hand. He had certainly a strict right to make use of it in this way.
Mr. Brougham
said, certainly not, after their lordships had laid down a contrary rule on a former occasion, and decided that a different manner should be observed.
The Solicitor General
said, that his learned friend was evidently blending together two different and distinct things. He was confounding the form of putting a paper as evidence, and merely using it to refresh a witness's memory.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it was a very different thing to say that a paper should be put in as evidence, and that it should only be referred to for the purpose of refreshing a witness's memory. He thought it perfectly clear and incontrovertible that while a witness referred to a paper to refresh his memory, it was quite competent for the counsel who was conducting the examination also to look over the paper used by the witness.
Mr. Denman
said, that his objection was not to his learned friend's glancing over the paper as the witness referred to it, hut taking it altogether out of his hand, and using it for quite a different purpose than refreshing the witness's memory, the only thing for which it was produced.
The Solicitor General
said, the only reason he had for taking the paper out of the witness's hand was, because Mr. Gurney (the shorthand writer) was situated between him and the witness, and therefore he could not read it at such a distance. If the witness came next to him, then there would be no occasion to take the paper out of his hands.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, the House ought to consider, at first, whether they could receive this paper as evidence, if it were offered to them as such. He had some doubts
466
Lord Colville
expressed a wish, that the witness, on being recalled, should say what log-book it was he had been referring to: or whether two log-books were kept—one for the ship, and the other for the witness's own use. The regular book always remained in the ship, for the use of the owners.
The Lord Chancellor
begged to restate the general rule of evidence which he had before read, and which was to be found in Phillips's Law of Evidence. It was a general rule that a memorandum, to be efficacious according to the rules of evidence, must he shown to have been taken, at the time of the occurrence of the fact to which it alludes, by the person who is speaking of it; or else by some other person, under his examination and inspection, so as to check any incorrectness.
The Witness was again called in.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—Produce the paper again.
467
468
Brougham.
The Solicitor General
then requested, that, before the witness was ordered to withdraw, he should be ordered to deposit the paper he had, with the clerk of the House.
Mr. Denman
objected to this application, and said, that he was entitled to see the paper before any thing was done with it: he had no copy of it, nor did he ever see it until now.
469
The Attorney General
said, the paper ought to be deposited, whether his learned friend had seen it or not.
Mr. Denman
hoped no insinuation was intended that he had seen this paper before this day at the bar. If such were intended, he must repel it in the manner it deserved [Cries of "Order" from the House.]
Mr. Brougham
hoped, if their lordships suffered these insinuations to be flung out on one side, they would injustice allow them to be repelled on the other.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that counsel must abide by the decision of the House, and not provoke unnecessary remarks.
Earl Grey
said, it was the duty of their lordships to abstain from replying to any extraneous remarks made by counsel on either side; but, when counsel appeared to them to exceed their line of duty, to interpose and stop the extraneous remarks, but not to do so by cries of "Order."
The Paper was delivered in.
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Kingston.
—You say, that you fitted up the princess's cabin, what was the length and width of the door? The doors might have been from three feet to three feet and a half wide: there were two divided.
470
471
Earl of Donoughmore.
—On the subject of these memorandums, you say that these memorandums which you have had occasion to refer to in this House were taken by yourself out of a larger paper memorandum, which you say is not the log-book; have you been always in the habit of taking such memorandums? They were taken from my memorandums by my direction.
472
473
474
l.
l.
l.
475
476
Mr. Brougham.
—Really, my lords, I cannot admit this question to be put. The noble lord has assumed that the witness stated he knew where this individual slept; whereas, on the contrary, he has declared over and over again, that he could not say where this person slept.
The Duke of Clarence.
—I think the counsel ought also to withdraw.
The Counsel and the Witness having withdrawn,
The Duke of Clarence
said, he rose to order. It had been said by a noble earl, that when any thing irregular or improper occurred at the bar, no noble lord should cry "Order," but state what passed, and offer his objection to it. He would pursue this course. He conceived that the conduct of the learned counsel, a few minutes before, was not what it ought to be. He thought that the learned counsel had commenced an objection in a manner not suitable to the dignity of the House. He had stated, that "he could not permit a question to be put in a particular way." This is all I have to say. I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend, but I did not think the objection stated in a way suitable to the dignity of your lordships.
Lord Foley
was of opinion, that a fair latitude ought to be given to the counsel in offering their objections.
The Duke of Clarence.
—I do not mean to say, and God forbid that I should, that we, who are not professional or learned lords, should not be stopped by counsel, either by those who support the allegations of the bill, or by those who appear for her majesty, if improper questions are demanded. The counsel are, undoubtedly, bound to do their duty. But I think it is the duty of this House to see, that due respect is paid to it; and that counsel, when they address your lordships, should state, in a proper and respectful manner, whether a question, in their opinion, should, or should not, be put.
Lord Redesdale
concurred in the opinion, that objections ought to be put in the most respectful manner.
477
The Earl of Albemarle
observed, that the counsel was stopped in the midst of his reasoning on the question, which he did not consider a just course of proceeding.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was nothing more than reasonable that they should allow counsel to interrupt any of their lordships, if he conceived that an improper question was asked of a witness. He apprehended that the learned counsel did mean to act on that principle. At the same time, he was sure, as other professional persons would be, that, in addressing their lordships (he said it without intending to give any body offence, and even if it did give offence, he still felt himself bound to state it), a different language should have been used. The language that had been resorted to in opposing a question was not exactly that which it ought to be. He was sure, however, at the same time, that the learned counsel meant nothing disrespectful.
The Earl of Donoughmore
thought the House was much obliged to the illustrious person in the gallery for the interruption he had occasioned: at the same time he would do justice to the learned counsel, who, he was convinced, had no intention to give offence to their lordships. He was quite sure that the learned counsel entertained no such intention. His conduct during the whole of this proceeding had been most correct and becoming. He agreed that the objection of the learned counsel would have been a proper objection, if he had stated his (lord Donoughmore's) question as he really put it.
The Witness was again called in.
Earl of Donoughmore.
—Having sworn, on your direct examination, that you did not know where Pergami had slept on the voyage homeward, account how you are enabled to form at once a belief as to the negative, namely, where he did not sleep, that is, under the tent?
Mr. Brougham
said, he could assure their lordships that he meant nothing offensive or disrespectful in the words that he had used, and which had recently been objected to. He believed their lordships would recollect that, of the 50 or 60 times during which it had been his painful duty to oppose particular questions, he had proceeded in the same way. He had adopted the shortest possible course, and stated, that he could not permit such and such questions to be put. He had, for the sake of brevity, dispensed with his ordinary phraseology, and adopted that language, which, he believed, had always been allowed to the managers of impeachments before that
478
479
Mr. Brougham
objected to the question, for it assumed, that the witness had said he bad a strong or decided impression as to where Pergami did not sleep, while he had said no such thing. The witness had stated his reasons for believing that Pergami did not sleep under the tent, but he had said nothing about a Strong impression.
The Lord Chancellor
remarked, that the question was irregular, inasmuch as it spoke of "appearing to entertain a strong impression;" the usual and proper way being to repeat the words which the witness had used, and to ask him for an explanation of those words. The question in its present shape could not be consistently put.
The question was not pressed.
Earl of Morton.
—You said something with respect to the fear of pirates, and of putting out the lights in consequence of that fear? I did.
480
Lord Colville.
—State to the house whether you do not think there would have been very great danger of the light in that binnacle being blown out, if it was left open in the manner you describe in the fore-part of it?—If it had been left entirely open, there would.
481
482
483
Earl Grosvenor.
—You have said that you did not know where Pergami slept on-the return voyage from Jaffa; do you know where Hieronimus, or any other of the princess's suite, slept during that time? I know where Hieronimus slept.
Lord Falmouth.
—When you said that your memorandum was written by your clerk, and afterwards copied by Schiavini, what did you mean; explain that? I explained that it was written by my dictating.
484
Earl of Lauderdale.
—When was that memorandum which you brought from Sicily destroyed? I do not remember the day.
485
Marq. of Buckingham.
—Can you swear that every time you looked into the tent you saw the princess"? Every time I looked into the tent at night, I did see her.
486
Duke of Clarence.
—How many years were you a midshipman? I do not know precisely, I believe from seven to eight years.
487
488
489
Earl of Balcarras
—Did you conceive your self entitled to alter, correct, or confirm the regular log-book of the ship? No.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then William Carrington
was again called in, by order of the House, and further examined by their lordships as follows:
Lord Melville.
—You stated to their lordships, when you were examined by the counsel who first examined you on Saturday last, that previously to having been in the service of sir William Gell, you had served in the navy, and in the capacity of a midshipman? Yes, with sir John Beresford.
490
491
492
493
Duke of Clarence.
—You have said you had never been in any other ship in his majesty's service than the Poictiers? I understood with sir John Beresford.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—When you stated that you were perfectly clear in your own mind, that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than your own request; did you mean that you considered the request which appears to have been made by sir William Gell, to have been made by your autliority? By my authority, or by my wish.
Lord Colville.
—Upon your last examination you were asked, are you positively sure that from the time you joined the Poictiers you were rated midshipman? I said I did not know I was, I was midshipman when I left it, as I saw in my ticket.
494
Lord Exmouth.
—Where were you born?
Lord Ellenborough.
—When you were last examined, you were asked what situation you had served in before you were on board the Poictiers as a midshipman, your answer was, "I have been at sea in the merchant service when I was a boy; then I lived on land, and got my livelihood in the best way I could." The next question is this, "You are to be understood that you were never in his majesty's service before?" to which the answer is, "no." Are you to be understood that you now swear that you considered that second question immediately following the first, which has just been read, to refer not to your service generally on board his majesty's ships, but to your service in a ship with sir John Beresford? I understood it to allude entirely to sir John Beresford, and to my service as a midshipman on board the Poictiers.
495
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Brougham
requested permission to put to the witness a question which had been accidentally omitted on his former examination; and he would state to their lordships the reason which led him to ask this indulgence. In consequence of the interruption occasioned by the discussion which had taken place on a preceding question, his learned friend, Dr. Lushington, who was examining the witness, had accidentally turned over that page of his brief at the bottom of which this question stood. The question would be found not only in his learned friend's brief, but in all the other five briefs; and he and his learned friends were ready to pledge their honour to the House that it was not a new point which had been suggested since the former examination of the witness. He therefore begged leave now to ask the witness, whether or not he did not know, of his own knowledge, that previous to her royal highness arriving at Naples, on the journey to Naples, William Austin slept in a room apart from her royal highness, at least more than once, he himself having made William Austin's bed on that occasion?
Dr. Lushington
begged to state to their lordships how this omission had occurred. At the conclusion of the questions, in his brief, stood this one; and preceding it was the business about Majoochi and Ompteda, which, their lordships would recollect, had given rise to a great deal of discussion. He had not forgot, in consequence of that discussion, that another question remained to be put; but, at the moment when he was about to refer to it, a different question was handed to him on a slip of paper, and that put the other out of his mind.
496
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was customary to allow a counsel to put a question in such case, when he stated his readiness to pledge his word of honour that he had intended To put it on the examination in chief. [Hear, hear!]
Dr. Lushington
added, on his word of honour, that the question was accidentally omitted by him when the witness was formerly examined.
Earl of Lauderdalé.
—When you made William Austin's bed, was it a single bed in the room, or was there another beds that room? There were generally beds belonging to the house in that room; but this was one bud his travelling bed.
Joseph Robert Hownam
497
498
499
500
501
502
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, October 11.
The Order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to de- "prive Her Majesty, &c.," and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; the Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Lieutenant Joseph Robert Hownam was again called in, and further examined by Mr. Tindal, as follows:
You were asked yesterday about the communication between the tent and the part of the vessel below the deck, was that communication open by night as well as by day? The ladder stood constantly there.
Have you had any opportunity of knowing, by going there by night, whether it was open or not? I have.
State upon what occasions that happened? I have in an evening, not knowing that her royal highness had retired, run up that ladder to go on deck, and did not find the tent was closed till I got up.
Was the light out upon that occasion? I imagine it was, I do not recollect to a certainty.
503
Was the tent of which we are speaking a single tent or a double tent? It was the awning of the ship.
Does that imply that it was single? It was single with the exception of another piece, put round it to make it compleat probably, but the pieces having been put I do not recollect.
The question is, whether there was one tent or whether there were two, one exterior of the other? One only.
Have you any means of knowing whether the opening by which the tent was accessible on the outside was closed or not, so that it could be opened or not by a person on the outside? On board the vessel, I imagine that it could be opened from the outside certainly.
What was the nature of the opening, describe it if you please? As all tents are closed, the two parts of the canvas brought together, not sewed or any thing of that sort.
Then is the mode by which a person on the outside who wanted to go in, would do so, simply that of drawing back a part of the tent? I should think so.
How near was that tent placed to the steersman? It came close aft to the mizenmast.
Can you state, not precisely, but within about what distance that would come of the steersman? I suppose four, or five, or six feet.
Were there any part of the crew who were up during the night? The watch, one half the vessel's crew kept watch by night.
Was there a passage by the slide of this tent from the after part of the ship to the forepart of the ship? The tent occupied the whole of one side of the vessel, the other side there was a clear passage.
Did the duty of the crew, in the ordinary management of the vessel, carry them at any times from one end of the ship to the other? Constantly.
You have stated that beneath this tent there was a sofa and a travelling bed? Yes.
Do you know upon which of them her royal highness reposed during the night? On the sofa, I think.
Do you know who reposed during the night in the travelling bed? I do not know, for I never was in the lent after night.
Do you know whether her royal highness reposed under that tent alone during the night? I do not know, because I have not seen it.
Do you recollect, during the journey by land from St. Jean D'Acre to Jerusalem, whether her royal highness, during the time she reposed, was dressed or undressed? I never saw her undressed.
Have you any reason to know whether she was one or the other? I have never seen her during the day whilst she was reposing, consequently I have not seen her undressed.
Have you ever happened to go in immediately previous to your resuming your jour-
504
Are you to be understood to say, you do not know whether her royal highness was dressed or undressed during the times of lying by? I do not believe she ever was undressed during that journey.
State the grounds of the belief you have framed? I never saw any bed-clothes on the sofa that was placed in the tent.
This was with respect to the journey by land; as to the tent on board the ship, do you know whether her royal highness was dressed or undressed whilst under the tent? I never saw any bed-clothes on the sofa.
Do you recollect, upon any occasion, an accident happening one night, by a sea breaking into the tent? I do.
Be so good as to describe the nature of that accident, and what you observed? It was on the coast of Caramania, in a squall the sea broke over the quarter of the vessel, and her royal highness came down below to sleep.
Was the accident of that nature to call you up immediately? It was.
Did you see her royal highness at the moment of her coming down? I did.
Upon that occasion was her royal highness dressed or not? She was dressed.
Did you at that moment observe any body with her? The persons handing her down.
Who were the persons or the person handing her down? I think it was Pergami, and Mr. Flinn I think.
Was Pergami at that time dressed or undressed? He was dressed.
Do you recollect during the voyage a bath at any time being taken by her royal highness? I recollect that her royal highness did take baths on the passage home.
When the bath was taken, what was the description of the tub, or the implement used for a bath? It was a common bathing tub, made at Augusta by my directions.
Without asking you as to the precise size of it, was it of such a size that it could or could not be put into her royal highness's cabin when her bed was there? I do not think it possible.
During the time you were on board this vessel, did you ever see her royal highness sitting upon a gun with Pergami? I never saw that.
Did you ever see her sitting on a bench, either with her arms round him, or his round her? Never.
Did you ever see the one kissing the other? Never.
Did you ever perceive any impropriety or indecency of behaviour of the one towards the other, while you were on board the vessel? Never.
Did your duty carry you frequently upon the deck? It did; the management of the ship was chiefly in the hands of Mr. Flinn.
In point of fact, were you generally on deck or not, during the day? I was.
505
Do you recollect, at any time, Pergami I dressing himself up in any particular way on board with pillows? I do.
Be so good as to state the occasion of that circumstance? It was in derision of the English consul at Jaffa, who came on board in long Greek robes, with a gold-laced cocked hat and a gold-headed cane.
Was he a pompous figure, this consul? He was.
Do you remember a person of the name of Mahomet, who was on board on your return voyage? I do.
Do you remember a dance performed by Mahomet? I do.
Can you remember the occasion upon which that dance was first called for? It originated in a sort of quarrel that this Arab had with the doctor; he being sick on board, the doctor wanted to give him some physic; he would not take it, and afterwards he used to laugh at the doctor, and ridicule him by this dance.
Was the doctor angry with him for not taking his physic? The doctor abusing him for not taking the physic was the cause of the quarrel or difference.
When the doctor appeared on deck was Mahomet sometimes called for? By one or the other of the suite pointing to the doctor, and saying "Mahomet, dema, dema," upon which he performed this dance.
The Attorney General.
—We must not hear what was said by other persons.
Mr. Brougham.
—I beg your pardon. This is a fact; and all that accompanies a fact is evidence.
506
507
508
509
The Attorney General
objected to the question. He apprehended that the declarations of her royal highness to the witness respecting Ompteda was not at all the matter in question, and could not be received in evidence. If all the directions which her royal highness gave to the witness were to be admitted in evidence, they would not know where to stop; because in that case, every thing that she had from time to time said to Mr.
510
Mr. Tindal
said, he apprehended that any directions given to the witness by her royal highness, and which were afterwards communicated to Ompteda, might be given in evidence. Suppose, said he, that we shall be able to prove, that Ompteda was requested never again to enter the house of her royal highness, we cannot prove that simple fact without first calling the attention of the witness to the directions to that effect which he received from her royal highness. I apprehend that these directions or commands may be legally given in evidence.
The Lord Chancellor
suggested, that the regular course would be, first, to ask the witness whether he did such and such a tiling, and then whether he did it by her royal highness's directions.
The Lord Chancellor
directed the counsel, first to ask what he did, and then to ask the directions under which he did it.
511
512
Mr. Attorney General.
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
Mr. Brougham
objected to this question, as it assumed that to walk arm in arm was the usual practice of the princess and Pergami, and that this was admitted by the witness, which was not the fact. He should have no objection to the question, if put in a general way, without any assumption as to what was their usual way of walking.
525
The Attorney General
said, that he was not aware of any assumption. He meant merely to ask, if the witness saw the princess and Pergami walking arm in arm; whether, from the usual way of walking so, that would make any impression upon him?
Earl Grey
said, the objection urged by the learned counsel, on the other side, would still apply to the form in which the attorney-general purposed to put the question; for this question assumed, that it was the usual practice of the princess and Pergami to walk arm in arm.
The Attorney General
observed, that in cross-examination he was entitled to put leading questions.
The Lord Chancellor
said, there could be no objection to the question, if put in another shape, and free from the words assumed to be in evidence. The question might be so varied in terms as to obviate any objection, and to convey the same meaning. Counsel might ask, whether it was so usual, that it would have made no impression upon the mind of the witness if he had seen it.
526
Mr. Brougham
said, he did not interpose here for the purpose of objecting to the question, but merely that their lordships might make a note in their own minds, that he did not object to it, although he certainly had a right. He had not, however, the slightest objection to this question, and a thousand others to the same purpose; he was, on the contrary, only sorry that he had not put them himself.
527
Mr. Brougham
submitted, that the witness must not be taken to have stated that he had been at Scharnitz, but at the barrier town between the Austrian Tyrol and Bavaria.
528
529
530
531
532
533
Tindal.
534
The Solicitor General
was astonished to hear such a question from his learned friend. He was astonished to hear him say, "Do you believe he was dressed?" to his own witness; and apprehended the question could not be put.
Mr. Tindal
was no less astonished at the objection of the Solicitor-General.
The Lord Chancellor
thought that, under the circumstances of the case, the question could nut be put.
535
Mr. Tindal
requested leave to put one question that he ought to have put on the examination in chief.
The Attorney General
would be glad to learn how that question could possibly apply, in a re-examination? It did not apply.
Mr. Brougham
contended, that it did apply, and very minutely. The object of it might be to know whether the witness had ever been
536
Lord Chancellor.
—Was that person the sailor that was on board the ship? Yes, he was.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Rosebery.
—You have stated, that you sometimes saw the princess at breakfast at Genoa, did you see her royal highness frequently at breakfast? Only once is impressed upon my memory.
537
Earl Grey.
—When you stated that you thought it necessary some persons should sleep near her royal highness on deck, did you mean that you thought it necessary some male attendant should sleep near her royal highness? I meant that.
538
Earl of Liverpool.
—Do you knew where captain Flinn slept, on the voyage from Jaffa to Capo d'Anza? He slept in his cabin, and I recollect some nights his having hung his cot upon deck.
Mr. Denman
submitted, with great deference, that the question ought not to be put: He did not mean to object to the question itself, which was perfectly proper under other circumstances, but as the witness, from his situation as private secretary to her majesty might be in possession of confidential communications, and might know something respecting the written instruments between the buyer and seller which he ought not to be called upon to disclose, it would be better, as he conceived, to defer the question.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that he only wanted to know the fact whether the princess had bought the estate, and given it to Pergami.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that the witness might be asked whether an estate was purchased and conveyed, and if he staled that it was conveyed by writings, that the examination must there stop.
The Witness was again called in.
Earl of Liverpool.
—Do you know whether Pergami is in possession of the Barona? No, I do not, at this present moment.
Marquis of Lansdown.
—Do you know where the countess Oldi and Victorine slept on the journey to Jerusalem? I think the countess Oldi had a tent of her own, but I do not know whether she slept there or not; of whether she slept under one of the tents with the chambermaids who were there, I do not know.
539
Earl of Limerick.
—Upon those occasions, when you state that you believe Pergami slept under that tent, have you any reason to think that any third person, male or female, slept under that tent? I do not know.
540
Mr. Brougham
objected to the use made of the word. He observed, that if it was taken down in the Minutes, it might give a meaning to the former answer of the witness, different from that which he certainly intended. The inference might be, that he wished no comparison to be made between Mrs. Hownam and the illustrious person, and such an inference would be untrue.
The Earl of Limerick
said, he had made no comparison, He did not wish either to hurt the feelings of the witness, or to have any thing put in the Minutes that ought not to appear:
541
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, October 12, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act" to deprive her Majesty, &c." and for hearing Counsel for and against the same,
The Earl of Blesington
begged to take that opportunity of remarking, that a complaint had gone forth, that the rapid manner in which questions were put one after another to the witnesses, was calculated to produce confusion, and to induce a witness to commit inaccuracy, from the necessity of answering as quick as the questions were put. He therefore suggested, for the purpose of obviating any possible inconvenience of this kind, that the short-hand writer
542
The Lord Chancellor
requested, that Mr. Gurney would have the goodness to read over each question and the answer when it was given, before another question was put.
The Earl of Lauderdale
would say nothing which could be construed into a desire to have a different direction given than that pointed out by the learned lord on the woolsack; but still he must say, that if the short-hand writer were ordered to pursue this course, it would have the certain tendency to destroy the main effect of cross-examination.
Earl Grey
quite agreed with the noble earl, that it would impair the effect of cross-examination; but still, if witnesses were unable to speak so audibly as that the House could hear them, what else was to be done? Unless the short-hand-writer were to read the answers, he, for one, must say that he would lose nine answers out of ten. The witnesses must be heard, and it was better their answers should be repeated by the short-hand-writer, than remain unknown to many of their lordships.
Counsel were called in.
Then Lieutenant Joseph Robert Hownam was again called in, and farther examined by their lordships as follows:
Lord Erskine
observed, that he did not find it necessary now to put the questions to this witness that he intended yesterday; in fact, they had been answered in the course of yesterday, when put by others in a different form.
Lord Walsingham.
—Do you know where it was that the princess took her bath on board the polacre, what cabin, or where? I never saw her royal highness take a bath on board, consequently I cannot tell.
Earl of Carnarton.
—You have stated, that you were with her royal highness at Trieste, can you speak from your own knowledge, whether after the time you joined her royal highness in Italy, she ever was at Trieste, except upon the occasion you have referred to? Never.
Lord Kingston.
—Were you in the princess service before Pergami? I was not.
543
Earl of Darnley.
—You are understood to have said, in answer to a question put in the latter part of your examination, that there was no mystery or concealment whatever in Pergami's sleeping underneath the same tent with her royal highness on board the polacre; on other occasions, when Pergami may have slept near her royal highness during that journey, was there any mystery or concealment of any kind? None whatever.
The Earl of Lauderdale.
—I will just ask your lordships how this can be evidence?
The Lord Chancellor
could not conceive how the question could apply in any way to the inquiry before their lordships.
Mr. Attorney
General submitted an objection to the question.
544
The Lord Chancellor
objected to the question; and it and the answer were struck out of the Minutes.
Lord De Dunstanville.
—What was the distance from the steerage to the tent? They are upon separate decks, the steerage of the vessel is underneath.
545
Earl Grosvenor.
—Have you any reason to believe, that after the violent attack made on her royal highness's house at Genoa, or from any circumstance preceding your calling out baron Ompteda, or from any other circumstances at that time, her royal highness entertained any particular apprehensions with regard to her personal safety? She did, because she has mentioned it to me.
Lord Combermere.
—Yow have stated, that, on account of the rolling of the ship, as well as for the protection of her royal highness, it was necessary to have somebody in the tent with her; would not yourself or Mr. Flinn, or any seafaring person, have answered that purpose better than a landsman, if it was on account of the rolling of the ship? I should imagine if that was the only cause, certainly a seafaring man would be most capable of rendering assistance.
Marquis of Downshire.
—Did any facts to your knowledge occur at the princess's residence, that occasioned the quarrel between you and baron Ompteda? By the confession of a servant; I saw the servant on his knees begging pardon for his crime.
The Earl of Lauderdale
was of opinion this could not with propriety be received as evidence. He requested, that the two last questions and answers might be read over, which was accordingly done. His lordship then submitted, that the statement that the witness had seen the servant kneeling to make a confession ought not to stand on the Minutes.
Earl Grey
would agree with his noble friend, that the answer referred to could
546
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, it was perfectly true, that nothing of what had been confessed by the servant had been conveyed to the mind, by the answer alone; but coupled with the question, it was clear that certain circumstances had been brought to the knowledge of the witness by the confession of the servant. A hundred such answers would give the House no' information of facts known by the witness of his own knowledge. It was on the question and answer conjoined, that he founded his objection.
Earl Grey
thought, that on this, as well as on many other occasions, much time was unnecessarily lost. If the answer complained of, stated what had been confessed by the servant, the objection would be a good one; but he could see no objection to that answer remaining on the Minutes, which merely stated what the witness knew, of his own knowledge, that he had seen a servant kneeling before her royal highness, and that the name of that servant was Maurice Credi.
Lord Holland
complained of an objection being stated, not only after a question had been answered, but after another and another after that had been disposed of, and regularly taken down by the shorthand writer. Why did not his noble friend rise in the first instance, to move, that the first of the questions should be struck out? He thought it would save much time if it were made a rule that no question should be objected to but at the time of its being put; and that after another question had been asked, they ought not to go back to take into their consideration what had previously been put on their Minutes; for if they did so, there was no saying how far they might go back. Such inquiries would be interminable, and must add still more to that intolerable loss of time, which was already the subject of just complaint.
547
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was undoubtedly important, that objections to questions should be offered as soon as possible; but it might so happen, that a final answer might be of so objectionable a nature as to render it necessary to expunge from the Minutes the questions and answers that led to it. The witness was asked, Did he know of any acts or circumstances that caused a particular result? and he answered, That he had derived his knowledge from the confession of a servant. The fair interpretation of this was, that the witness was present at a statement made by that servant to another person; but whether this confession had one word of truth in it was not proved. The declaration of the witness might, therefore, under these circumstances, be considered as a direct assertion, that, in fact, he knew nothing of those circumstances. The name of the servant was required; and it was stated: if, therefore, he was not present to speak to the facts, the whole must fall to the ground.
The Marquis of Buckingham
said, it did not appear to him that the question and answer ought to stand; for that could not be received as evidence which had nothing to do with the case, but which related merely to a private quarrel between the witness and baron Ompteda. He was so far from thinking this ought to be received as evidence, that he was of opinion the whole ought to be expunged.
The Earl of Carnarvon
thought it important, to inquire into the circumstances connected with the quarrel between the witness and the baron Ompteda, as the evidence given on these points would go to affect materially the testimony of a most important witness, Theodore Majoochi. He did not know why their lordships should be precluded from any allusion to those circumstances. He did not see that if the question were put—" Did you see any, and what servant kneeling before her royal highness? "—there could be any possible objection to its being answered.
Marquis of Downshire.
—With whom did this person, Maurice Credi, live; whose servant was he? He was the servant of her royal highness the princess of Wales.
548
The Earl of Lauderdale
caused the last question to be read. He then objected to it, as referring to a matter not connected with the case.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he was sure that the cause which induced this gentleman to call out baron Ompteda had nothing to do with the issue their lordships had to try.
The Marquis of Downshire
was of opinion that he had a right to put the question.
The Lord Chancellor.
—of course the noble marquis will not suppose that I would have the presumption to say, that he has no right to put any particular question; but I should not do my duty in this House if I did not declare, plainly and directly, that I think the question cannot legally be put.
The Earl of Liverpool
was aware that their lordships were not shackled by the ordinary rules of evidence; but he believed there was scarcely a case in modern times, in the progress of which the peers had not imposed that restriction on themselves; and in this instance, the practice had been followed to the present moment. Now, he would throw it out for the consideration of their lordships, what a sea of difficulties they would have to encounter, if, having adopted that course, they should suddenly abandon it, and claim the right of putting any sort of questions they pleased.
Earl Grey
thought their lordships ought to confine themselves as much as possible to the rules of law that prevailed in the Courts below; and, having so long adopted that principle, he conceived it would not be right to depart from it, except on some very important occasion. He did not understand that his noble friend was going to press this question, which, under the circumstances of the case, could not, in his opinion, be put. To make it a legal question, the case of baron Ompteda must be connected with that into which they were authorised to inquire.
The Marquis of Devonshire
was willing to withdraw the question, which he had put, because it had not been asked by any other peer. He still wished, however, to elicit the fact by some other means.
Downshire.
549
Earl of Rosebery.
—When you saw this man upon his knees to her royal highness, did you hear her make any reply to his question of asking forgiveness? She forgave him.
Viscount Falmouth.
—You have stated, that you have seen her royal highness walking arm in arm with Pergami at the Villa d'Este, was she then with Pergami only? Walking arm in arm in the garden.
Lord Hood.
—Did the baron Ompteda dine at the princess's table at Milan? I think he did.
Duke of Athol.
—You have said, that you considered it necessary, in the situation of the princess of Wales on hoard the polacre, that a male attendant should sleep near her; did you ever express that sentiment to the princess of Wales herself? I never did.
550
Lord Grantham.
—You have said, that at Carlsruhe the princess dined with the grand duke, except one day that she dined with the Margravine; did you dine in company with her royal highness on those occasions? I did.
551
Earl of Darlington
—Your attention is directed to the time when Pergami, Camera, and Teodoro, took leave of her royal highness on disembarking at Terracina; you mentioned that they, each of them, kissed her hand; do you know that Pergami had not taken leave of her royal highness before coming on deck? I do not know that he had; I have not an idea of it.
552
Lord Ellenborough.
—You say, that when you saw captain Briggs at Portsmouth, he declined having any conversation with you I upon the subject of this inquiry; did you I propose any such conversation to him? The object of my going to Portsmouth was that; it was from myself.
553
554
555
556
Earl Grey.
—Have you ever seen the tent so closed during the day, that any part of the crew passing might not have seen who were within? No, I never did.
Earl of Winchelsea.
—You have said, that you went up the ladder at a late hour of the night, what do you mean by the term late, how late was it? Between the space after supper, and the ordinary time for closing the tent on deck; I have said, I believe, ten o'clock, but I maybe out half an hour, or even an hour, I cannot be positive.
Lord Auckland.
—Did you write your own challenge to baron Ompteda? I did.
Earl of Mansfield.
—Was there a companion to the hatchway? There was not.
Lord Clifden.
—Was not the princess, in fact, extremely fatigued by her voyage from Jaffa to Syracuse, arid extremely impatient to get ashore; and did she not complain, her legs being swelled, as a person who had not been a bed? I perfectly recollect the fact.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Do you mean that you recollect her royal highness's legs being swelled? I never saw her royal highness's legs.
557
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, I object to questions assuming the very reverse of what the witness has answered. The witness is asked, "How did you select the passages you read?" although he had said that no passage had been selected or pointed out. He is again asked, "you have then read the whole?" although he had said, that he had read only a part.
The Marquis of Lansdown.
—I object to the word "select" being entered as part of a question to the witness, for he had not said that he had selected the passages he read.
The Earl of Lauderdale
rose to explain, when the witness was ordered to withdraw. The witness said, he had partially read Sacchi's evidence, but not all. What was the inference but that there was part he had read, and part he had not? Now, how could this happen if part had not been pointed out to him for reading?
The Marquis of Lansdown.
—I have read a paper partially this morning, and yet I have selected no part of it [Hear, hear, hear!].
Earl Grey.
—A person very naturally reads one passage, and then passes over the rest of the same subject. Is that selection?
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Are you a knight of the order of St. Caroline? I am.
558
559
Mr. Brougham.
—A lieutenant in his majesty's navy is asked if he ever waited at table!
The Lord Chancellor.
—Mr. Brougham, object to the question if you think it improper, but you are not to make such observations if a question offends you.
The Earl of Lauderdale.
—I am the last that would have asked such a question, had not the witness said that Pergami and his relations had as great a claim as he to sit at her royal highness's table.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Who is Dr. Mocatti? He is professor of physic at Como, and I believe president of the college.
560
Duke of Clarence.
—Early in your examination yesterday you entered into the minute circumstances of your father, was your father ever in the service of any other person than the royal family? I can only speak from report, I believe he has been in the service of lady Charlotte Finch in his late majesty's household.
Lord Calthorpe.
—When you state that you
561
Earl Grosvenor
—Do you know that the duke and duchess of Torlonia have dined at any time with her royal highness? I think they have. Do you know whether the nephew of the duchess of Torlonia, Carlo Forti, waited at that time at table? It is the first time I have ever heard that Carlo Forti was nephew to the duchess of Torlonia.
562
Lord Balcarras
—Did not the swell of the sea occasionally make female attendance absolutely impossible? When there was any sea, that the vessel was in motion, the female attendants were as helpless, if I may use the term, as her royal highness herself.
Earl of Rosebery
—After the sea struck the tent, were the hatches closed? I think they were.
Duke of Richmond
—You have stated, that the first time you saw Pergami dine with the princess of Wales in his courier's dress, you do not recollect where he sat; will you swear he did not sit next to her royal highness? I do not recollect the circumstance, I have said so before.
563
Then Granville Sharps
esq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Denman.
Parke
564
Then Santino Gugiari
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Dr. Lushington, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
565
Interpreter
566
Parke
567
568
569
Examined by the
Lords
Earl Grosvenor
—Are there any other columns in the grotto than those you have described? There were.
570
Interpreter.
Earl Grosvenor
—Can you say how far that pilaster was from the statues of Adam and Eve? If I could see the plan which I have drawn, I could show the thing better.
Earl of Lauderdale
—What plan do you mean?
Earl Grosvenor
—Is that plan made by yourself? It is.
Mr. Parke
—When was this plan made? About an hour, perhaps half an hour, before I came here.
Earl Grosvenor
—Is it, as far as you can recollect, a correct plan of the rooms? It is.
571
Earl of Blesington
—Had those statues of Adam and Eve any fig leaves round them? It represented a vine leaf, which was made of tin, and was painted green.
Then Giuseppe Giarolini
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
572
573
The Solicitor General
objected to the question, and asked, to what part of the evidence of Restelli it was meant to be applied?
Mr. Williams
said, he referred to pages 226, 234, and 441 of the printed Minutes, The
Solicitor General
Mr. Williams
—I am about to establish a contradiction in Restelli's evidence. He applied to witness to come over here and give evidence, and tendered him money, or an equivalent for money for his evidence.
The Solicitor General
—Unless that be distinctly referred to in the former examination of Restelli, I shall certainly object to this question.
Mr. Williams
said, he was about to apply his questions particularly to those parts of Restelli's evidence which were contained in pages 226, 234, and 441 of the Minutes. He was about to establish the fact, that Restelli had come here to give evidence on an offer of money or some equivalent. He would go further, and show, that Restelli himself had been employed by the Milan Commission to collect evidence against her majesty, and they would find, in page 226, an admission that he had actually sent over a witness, Raggazoni. Their lordships would there find that Restelli told him he must go to Milan to be examined, as the government wanted him.
The Lord Chancellor
asked whether that was not on the cross-examination?
Mr. Williams
said it was, and then referred them to page 234, in which the witness, Mejani, stated that Restelli was the person who told him he must come to England. He next adverted to page 411, containing the point of Restelli's evidence which he was prepared to contradict. Restelli had then denied that he offered money to the witness. But their lordships would recollect, that this was not a common case in which the strictness of legal rules ought to be enforced. They had not the same opportunity, as in other cases, of inquiring what was done by the civil agent. In the courts below there were alwa3's two parties; but that was not the case here. The Queen was certainly in attendance, but it was not ascertained
*
† Ibid, p. 1102.
574
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it was then so near four o'clock, that they could not bring the argument to a conclusion; but he would beg to call the attention of the counsel on both sides to page 412, from which it appeared, that Restelli, on being asked whether he had offered any body money for coming here as a witness, answered that he had not.
*
Mr. Brougham
stated, that there were two grounds of objection; first his agency, and, secondly, the contradiction of his evidence.
The Solicitor General
said, that Restelli having denied that he had offered money to any one, if his learned friends, had any witness to produce who could prove that he had, no objection would be made to the production of such evidence.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, October 13, 1820.
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 Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Giuseppe Giarolini
was called in, and further examined, as follows, by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
*
575
Mr. Solicitor
General submitted whether this conversation between the witness and Restelli could be given in evidence.
The Solicitor General
submitted, whether, in that view, it would not have been proper, as on a former occasion, to have asked Restelli when under examination, whether he had ever said any thing about money in a conversation with this particular witness. Surely his recollection should have been precisely called to a conversation with this man, before the latter's testimony could be received in contradiction. This, indeed, was necessary, to enable the House to judge of the conflicting testimony. Restelli's answer stood quite general, and without the explanation that might have accompanied and elucidated it, if his recollection had been called to the precise occurrence. The printed evidence was regularly transmitted to Italy, and the witnesses who now came over had an opportunity of seeing it. They had, therefore, the advantage which must necessarily arise from being put in possession of that information. He repeated, that Restelli ought to be asked particularly, whether he conversed with this man, before the latter's contradictory evidence could be received against him, as otherwise, the proceeding would be most awkward, while it would serve to establish a precedent peculiarly dangerous to the character of a witness.
576
Mr. Williams
denied the force of this argument, and said, that he was only seeking to get at a fact, which he had a right to do in his own way. He could see nothing awkward in the proceeding, except that of getting out the fact that Restelli had offered money to this witness.
The Lord Chancellor.
—You may get at the fact, without asking the whole conversation.
Mr. Williams.
—I ask the witness, whether Restelli, in the conversation with him, suggested any mode of his getting payment of the balance of the debt due to him by her royal highness?
The Lord Chancellor.
—Cannot you ask him, whether Restelli made him any offer of money?
Mr. Williams.
—Or money's worth.
The Lord Chancellor
—Yes, that is the same thing.
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought the witness ought to be examined to a particular fact, and not generally. The counsel for the defence inquired generally, whether Restelli had proposed to this witness that he should go to Milan. The noble and learned lord had said, it might be asked whether Restelli had "offered any money," or "money's worth," but the learned counsel would go on to whether Restelli had given any direction to the witness relative to the way in which he should seek payment of his bill.
The Lord Chancellor
considered that the question, whether Restelli had offered money, or money's worth? might be put, as it appeared, upon reference to the evidence, p. 412, that Restelli denied his having made an offer of money to any body to become a witness in this cause.
Mr. Williams
proposed to ask the witness, whether Restelli had made any offer of money, or money's worth, or any advantage?
The Lord Chancellor
recommended, rather, that the witness should be first asked, whether Restelli had ever offered him any money, and, the answer to that question being obtained, Mr. Williams might then state any further question as to any offer of advantage, upon the propriety of putting which, it would be for the House to decide.
577
The Solicitor General
objected to this question, as being decidedly contrary to the established rules of evidence.
Mr. Williams
begged, before their lordships decided upon this question, that he might be allowed to offer a few words for their consideration. In the first place, he felt it necessary to refer to the evidence, with respect to Restelli's general agency. At page 411, it would be found that Restelli had been asked—"Did you not become a very active agent of the Milan commission? To this the answer he returned ran as follows:—"I was not an agent; they have given me orders only as a courier (which is my profession), and as courier I have travelled."—Hence it appeared that Restelli denied that he was the agent to the Milan commission, or what amounted to the same thing. The evidence which the counsel for the defence would now submit to their lordships, would go to show what this same Restelli had stated to the witness, what he had done in the collection of witnesses, in bringing persons before the Milan commission to be examined, and in making other arrangements for collecting persons who were to be examined in this cause. It was therefore intended to call on the witness to state the names of several persons with whom Restelli had described himself to have been active in offering various sums of money and other inducements to prevail upon them to give evidence. On this ground, he apprehended their lordships would not refuse to permit him to examine the witness as he had proposed to do; but, in addition to this, there were several facts that appeared on the Minutes to which he proposed to refer their lordships.—If their lordships would refer to page 226, to page 234, and to page 411, in each of these it would be found, that facts were stated which went to prove the active interference of Restelli
578
Mr. Brougham
observed, that his learned friend, Mr. Williams, had so fully explained his view of the case, that little remained for him to say. They wished to offer the evidence in question first, as a contradiction to part of Restelli's evidence, they having obtained from Restelli a denial that he was the agent of the Milan commission, and a declaration that he was only employed as a courier. They proposed to negative this, by proving that he had stated to the present witness, that he had performed duties which had nothing to do with the office of a courier. If they had known that Restelli was to have been called, instead of being igno-
579
ex concessis,
Mr. Solicitor General
said, his learned friends on the opposite side had argued that they had aright to have the question which had been objected to, answered, on
580
581
Mr. Brougham
begged he might be allowed to say, that his observations upon the difficulty in point of time, referred to the refusal of a list of witnesses. It was that denial which deprived her majesty's counsel of the means of examining Restelli upon this point before.
Mr. Solicitor General
said, they might have availed themselves of the permission given them by their lordships, to postpone the cross-examination until they were enabled to enter into it effectually.
Lord Erskine
said, that their lordships had evidence before them, that Restelli had denied on oath, what was proved to have been done by him. If, then, he had intermeddled—he would not use a stronger word at present—but if he had intermeddled in getting evidence against her majesty, the counsel had a right to inquire into that fact, and it was most important for their lordships. He attended there, from day to day, to do all in his power that the strict rules of law might be attended to as far as, in the situation in which they were placed, their proceedings could be assimilated to ordinary proceedings: but it was essentially necessary that all the light should be let in upon this dark transaction which they could let in. He lamented exceedingly that in this transaction they were at the present moment so much in the dark as to the Milan commission. He
582
583
The Earl of Liverpool
rose, not to give any opinion upon the question immediately before the House, but to say, that the Milan commission—that was, the gentlemen at the head of it, or rather the gentleman at the head, might be called to the bar. No objection would be made to his being called and examined at their lordships' bar at present, or, in any stage of the proceeding, that might be thought most convenient. This was all he had to observe upon this subject. No objection whatever would be made to giving to their lordships the whole history of the Milan commission.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it was impossible for any man who felt as all their lordships ought to feel, to doubt that, after what had passed, the gentlemen of the Milan commission ought to have an opportunity of explaining their Conduct. It was not consistent for him to make any observation on the evidence before them, as establishing or contradicting any former evidence; for all the evidence would come to be considered hereafter: but it was not consistent with his duty to give any character, good or bad, to any witness. As to the present difficulty, he would say that it did not at all follow, that, because the answer might prove nothing, therefore the question ought not to be put. To be sure, the legal weight depended on the answer; and so it would be here. If the agent had thought fit to exceed his powers, that would not be the act of his principal; but it might be proper to inquire into it, for other purposes. If the allegation were, that he had offered money, and ten persons should say, that he had done so, the mere fact of having offered money would not become the act of his principals. But if they should say, that he had offered no money, and it should be proved that he had acted as an agent, the principals were not thereby proved to be implicated. Still the question was to be put, and they must take the answer;
584
585
Lord Erskine
said, that, let the commissioners be righteous as righteous could be, the witnesses might have been corrupted, and that was equally fatal to the inquiry in this case.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that if the charge which had appeared in evidence against the agent were substantiated, their lordships ought not to proceed a step further; but it would become their bounden duty at once to put a stop to this odious, detested, and infamous bill. Their lordships ought not to proceed a single step till they ascertained the nature and character of the agency of Restelli, which, from what had already appeared in evidence, was calculated to throw discredit upon all the witnesses who had been brought forward in support of this proceeding. If the corrupt agency of Restelli were proved, he felt persuaded, that there did not exist one of their lordships who would not say, that they should at once rescue the country from this, the greatest curse that the folly and infatuation of ministers had ever inflicted upon it. Ministers were deeply responsible for putting the security—the existence—of our most valuable institutions, upon the issue of a proceeding, as odious in principle, as it was pregnant with danger to the country; they had done all that in them lay, to bring into contempt and disgrace every institution which the country held sacred, and upon which its future prosperity depended; but if the bribery imputed to Restelli, if the corrupt agency of Restelli, were proved, he believed even ministers themselves would not venture to go on, and sign the death-warrant of the British constitution. He could not consider the question as a dry question of
586
The Earl of Donoughmore
thought it necessary to call their lordships' attention to the observations which had just fallen from his noble friend. Upon a dry question, as to the admissibility of evidence, upon which the noble and learned lord had delivered, as he always did, a noble and learned opinion as a lawyer, his noble friend had thought proper to interpose with such a speech as, he believed, had never been heard before upon such an occasion. His noble friend had interposed, as if something particular had occurred in the debate, calling upon him for the display of so much angry feeling; and when the only question before their
587
The Earl of Carnarvon
explained. His noble friend had entirely mistaken the scope of his observations. What he had urged to their lordships was, that a charge of bribery having been established by the evidence of one person, against an agent connected with the Milan Commission, they ought to suspend all further investigation, till that question was determined, and that if the charge of corrupt agency were proved, it would become their bounden duty to put a stop to the proceeding.
588
589
Mr. Solicitor General.
590
591
592
Mr. Cohen
(whilst the answer was being interpreted.) He has added, "They did not offer it to me."
593
Williams.
Mr. Solicitor
General requested to ask a question of the interpreter, whether pilaster meant a flat column with a capital and a base?
Interpreter.
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Ellenborough.
—Do you recollect any
594
Interpreter.
595
Earl of De Lawarr.
—Could a person standing near or behind the pilaster in the grotto, see the statues of Adam and Eve? It appears to me impossible, but I have made not the observation, but as the room is round, and the statues are by the side, I should think that a person behind the pilaster cannot see them.
Earl Grosvenor.
—Have you, since you have
596
Lord De Dunstanville.
—You have said that Restelli told you certain witnesses were paid some forty and some fifty francs a piece, and that they continued at Milan for seven days, were those sums paid for the whole time they were at Milan, or was it a daily payment? Once only.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—What was the amount of the last payment you received from her royal highness the princess of Wales? The half, with the interest, which she paid me.
597
Mr. Brougham
begged leave to submit, that this question went to open a new case, and not that opened by the attorney-general. He begged to be understood as not objecting to such a course, but merely reminding their lordships, that if they entered into it, and that any thing were said which he might have occasion to answer, he should perhaps have to claim a delay of five or six weeks to bring over witnesses to meet this new case. After answering the case already brought forward, he must really ask for delay if another public prosecutor was to start up with a new case.
The Earl of Lauderdale
contended, that it was competent for any peer to call any witness, during any part of the prosecution, and ask him any question he pleased respecting the conduct of her majesty, and any or every part of that conduct.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he thought it quite clear that the limits put upon the forms of examination to be observed by counsel did not in any degree restrict the right of any peer to put such questions to any witness as he thought fit, at any period of this inquiry.
598
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that it was competent for any peer to do that, without being called a public prosecutor.
The Earl of Damley
remarked, that he was interrupted yesterday, and by the very noble earl who spoke last, in a material part of a course of examination, which he thought, if he bad pursued it further, would operate rather favourable for the interest of one of the parties in this case—the accused. He had yielded to that interruption, and refrained from pressing his questions to the witness. Their lordships, on this occasion, should recollect that they had taken upon themselves the anomalous functions of judges, jurors, and legislators. He had always understoodit to be the duty of a judge or a juror to lean to the side of mercy, and in favour of the accused. Keeping in mind this understanding, he could not refrain from taking this opportunity of remarking, that, notwithstanding what had been said by some of their lordships, of dignity and decency, of which he had heard so much, there were some to be found who appeared—instead of being impartial judges, and disposed to lean to the side of mercy—to have feelings of an opposite character.
Lord De Dunstanville
condemned the introduction of irrelevant remarks, calculated to lead to altercation.
The Earl of Darnley
resumed, and said that he did not mean to accuse any particular noble lord of partiality; but most certainly, generally speaking, he was sorry to find a disposition now and then manifested, which did not, in his judgment, appear calculated to sustain their lordships dignity and impartiality. For his own part, he was determined to discharge his duty fairly and impartially, with a proper disposition to lean to the side of mercy, the propriety of which he hoped others would feel as strongly as he did in the discharge of his duty, though he was astonished to find some of them did not.
Lord Redesdale
complained, that the concluding assertion of the noble earl was as strong as that with which he had set out. Now he hoped that he should be found to act as impartially in the discharge of his duty, as the noble earl. He was very sorry that any thing should have occurred at any period of the investigation to induce the noble earl to make the remark which he had made; but he must say, that it applied, if at all, as much to the opposite side of the House as to his side indeed more.
599
Lord Holland
was as anxious as any body to see their lordships abstain from altercation. He begged the learned lord would not take their defence under his charge; for, if his mode of defending the House against the charge of partiality was by imputing to his opponents unfair, unjust, and illiberal proceedings, it was the most unfortunate defence against partiality that he had ever listened to. It was wrong, he well knew, to impute improper motives to any noble lord; but he hoped they would not feel hurt at an observation which he was going to make—namely, that both parties were as partial as they possibly could be. Nobody could doubt that any noble lord possessed the right of calling up any witness, who could, either directly or indirectly, give testimony respecting the bill. Neither could any body doubt that to such a witness any question could be put by them, even though in its nature it were not strictly legal. But his noble friend (lord Lauderdale) had been the first to take objections against evidence which was not so, and the thanks of the House were due to him for so doing. And therefore any party, or any of their lordships, had a right to object to the putting of questions leading to a new inquiry. In point of candour and substantial justice, which was their proper guide on this occasion, if any of their lordships thought that he could bring forward evidence calculated to elucidate any circumstance, either on behalf of, or against the Bill, which had not been brought forward by counsel, it was fitting that such circumstance should be stated to the House; and afterwards inquired into; bin if a new inquiry were proposed, then their lordships ought to pause, and to consider whether they ought not to instruct the attorney-general to institute it, because it would be a fundamental violation of justice, that the judges, after the evidence was closed, should examine fresh evidence themselves, without allowing the parties to the Bill to enter into a cross-examination of it. He did not mean to dispute the right of his noble friend to put the question which he had asked; but he thought he ought, in candour, to have informed the House, that he had new matter to introduce, and to have asked their lordships leave to introduce it. He could wish his noble friend to withdraw the question altogether; but if he would not consent to do that, then counsel should have a right to cross-examine upon it,
600
—"Pudet hæc opprobria nobis Et dici potuisse et non potuisse refelli."
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought that his noble friend had known him long enough to be convinced that he was the last man in the world to feel hurt in the smallest degree by any thing that could be said or done towards him. He was himself in the habit of using strong expressions, and therefore made allowance for others who used them. There was one thing that made him indifferent to what was said of him; namely, the feeling that he was doing what was right. That feeling he had always enjoyed during the course of his life, and nevermore than during the present proceedings.
The Earl of Darnley,
in explanation, said, he did not mean to use the term harshly. Strictly speaking, the noble earl who brought down the papers on which the proceedings were founded, was the prosecutor. But no one, not even the most fastidious person, could find fault with the conduct of that noble earl during the whole of these proceedings. What he meant to say was, that he had noticed, during these proceedings, rather an over-zeal in the cause of an airy personage in this case—a person who was not here nor there—who was known to nobody, and yet who existed somewhere. If their lordships indulged in any such zeal, it would be impossible to discharge the high and important duty imposed on them with impartiality.
601
Williams.
Mr. Brougham
desired to know whether Restelli was forthcoming.
Mr. Attorney General
desired to know whether the counsel of her majesty wished to examine him as a witness.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he did wish to call Restelli; but that he was not in his corporal possession.
Mr. Attorney General
submitted, that if the attorney general of the Queen wished to call Restelli as a witness, he must take the usual steps.
Mr. Attorney General
answered, that he had been sent as a courier to Milan.
Mr. Brougham.
—Then he has been sent as a courier or agent to the Milan Commission. I therefore shall not call him.
Mr. Attorney General
said, that Restelli had been sent to Milan with dispatches, under the idea that he would not be again wanted. As soon, however, as that circumstance had come to his knowledge, supposing that Restelli might be wanted, he had sent a courier to desire his immediate return. If his learned friend had said, that he would cross-examine him in the course of the defence, and if he had not rejected the allowance of time which had been offered him by their lordships, Restelli might have been present at this stage of the proceedings. If his learned friend had wanted Restelli, it was his duty to have communicated the fact to him, or to have got an order of their lordships, compelling his attendance. No hint had, however, been conveyed to him that Res-
602
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not have foreseen the necessity of calling Restelli as his witness, until the examination which had just concluded had taken place. When the adjournment took place, the attorney-general or his agents—for agents he had, and active ones too—must have seen from the nature of his cross-examination, that he was laying the foundation of contradicting Restelli. It was, therefore, the duty of the attorney-general to have kept him here until he (Mr. B.) wished to re-cross-examine him. But if there was any one thing which the agents of the Bill ought not to have done, it was that of sending Restelli out of the country, in order that he might continue his operations as the agent of this—of this Milan Commission.
Mr. Attorney General
said, that one reason why Restelli had been sent out was, that he had been a courier before. He had brought several of the witnesses to this country. There existed in Milan a great anxiety for the safety of those witnesses, who were in this country, and in order to satisfy the anxiety of their friends it was thought advisable to send Restelli over with letters from the witnesses to their friends, to assure them that they were 6afe and unhurt. It was impossible that he could suppose that his learned friend intended to call Restelli as his witness, after having seen that he intended to contradict his testimony. But now, it appeared, that his learned friend intended to call the witness, whose testimony he had impeached, in support of his side of the case [No, no!]. If his learned friend bad thought proper to secure the attendance of the witness, he might have taken the steps necessary for that purpose.
Mr. Brougham
would not say a word in reply. If the witnesses were allowed to depart out of the country pending the proceedings, there was an end of the security which their lordships thought they possessed, that no perjury should be committed with impunity at their bar. Was he obliged under such circumstances to go on with this case.
603
Lord Holland
said, he rose to speak in behalf of their lordships, in behalf of justice, and to state, that the facts which had just come out at their lordships' bar were of a most monstrous nature. Their lordships would recollect, that at the commencement of these extraordinary proceedings, a noble lord rose, and most pertinently and solemnly observed, that under the peculiar circumstances of this case, persons would be called as witnesses, from a foreign land; persons of whom the accused was ignorant—of whose relations, condition, habits and characters, the judges, the accused, or the counsel, could know nothing. That it was possible, nay probable, under such circumstances that perjury might be offered at their lordships' bar. It was then asked, what security was to be given to prevent or punish such conduct, and whether there ought not to be a security similar to that existing in our courts against such an occurrence? On that occasion, the noble lord opposite rose, and with great appearance of candour, said, that it would be extremely difficult, according to the constitution of this country, to adopt any compulsion to make those persona remain in the country: but that he would do every thing in his power to secure full justice to the accused, and to protect their lordships from fraud and perjury. He had heard in the lobby of that House—he had heard in various parts of the metropolis—he had heard from various classes of people, from the highest to the lowest—much commendation bestowed upon the noble earl for the manliness of that declaration. But what now appeared to be the case? Why, it appeared that out of those men who had been dragged to the bar of the House, and some of whom had probably been bribed, it appeared that that very man who had given the most revolting and disgusting testimony, not only had withdrawn, but had been actually sent out of the country as 60on as notice had been given that his testimony was to be impeached. "Gracious God! (exclaimed the noble lord), can your lordships—I ask it in the name of common sense and common feeling—can your lordships suppose that, after such a proceeding as this, great as is the reputation of your lordships, great as is the character of this House, which I have alway6 been eager to uphold by
604
prima facie
The Earl of Liverpool
thought that, after the speech of the noble baron, he had a claim upon the indulgence of the House, and he would, therefore, ask their lordships whether, without any explanation of the circumstances, the attack which had been just made upon him was justified by the facts of the case, or by any thing which they knew of his character? He would appeal to their lordships
605
to
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the noble earl. It was doing but that justice to his high character, which that
606
607
The Lord Chancellor
claimed no more credit than was due to him when he said, that he knew nothing of the sending Restelli out of the country. He confessed that it was a most ill-timed and ill-judged proceeding. But the well-known character of the person who had done it, was a proof that it was not an error of intention, but merely an error of judgment. If it was an error of the former kind, strong language might properly be applied to it; but if it was merely founded on mistake, he thought that the opprobrious terms which had been used did not apply to it. But it was said, that great injury must be done to the illustrious accused. He allowed it. But what was the course which it was now proposed to adopt? To call Restelli to the bar? That course, unfortunately, could not be complied with; and he thought that considerable allowance ought to be made, in the consideration of her majesty's case, in consequence of that circumstance. Their lordships must therefore act upon this principle, that the examination, when gone into on a future day, would not be so beneficial to her majesty as it would be at present; and when they recollected that circumstance, they must give her the benefit of it, in the language of the law, "liberally and largely." The noble marquis had said, that it was their duty to repair the injury which they had done her majesty; but, it was beyond their power to do it. What, then, was to be done? Could they close the proceedings at that stage?
608
The Earl of Carnarvon
fully agreed with the learned lord, that there was nothing which they could do that would repair the injuries they had done to her majesty in the course of this investigation. What, then, was the only remedy left them to adopt? What was the only step which they could take, to do her majesty justice? It was, now to put an end, once and for all, to this base and infamous proceeding. How did the case now stand? Her majesty's defence was interrupted, in a manner the most unwarrantable, and the most extraordinary; and, by the admission of the learned lord himself, she could not be restored to the situation in which, if the witness had not been sent away, she would have been placed. This occurrence he did not attribute to the noble earl, but to the agents of the government. Here he called on them to stop. Had not they long enough outraged public feeling, disgusted common sense, and disgraced the country, by hearing at the bar of the House, from day to day, that abominable and disgusting ribaldry, which had been resorted to on this occasion, he knew not for what practical purpose? They ought to consider, whether they were not, by their proceedings, rendering themselves objects of execration to every Englishman, and of contempt to all the rest of Europe? How was it that the learned lord proposed to remedy, as well as he could (for he admitted that no perfect remedy could be discovered), the default of those with whom the present subject of complaint originated? There was proof, that an extensive system of subornation of perjury existed, which they were prevented from probing to the bottom. Well, therefore, might the learned lord admit, that substantial justice could not be done. With whom had this gross error originated? Certainly not with her majesty's counsel, but with his majesty's ministers; or, if not with them,
609
The Lord Chancellor.
—I rise merely to explain. I never could enter this House again, with quiet to my mind, if I admitted, as the noble earl asserts, that this House could not do substantial justice. I am decidedly of opinion, that it can do substantial justice. Allowing liberally and largely for the circumstance that has happened, so far from being unfavourable to the individual, it may turn out, on the contrary, to be extremely favourable to her majesty. It is impossible, therefore, to say that the House cannot do substantial justice.
Lord Ellenborough
understood his noble
610
611
The Earl of Darnley
was of opinion, that before they came to any vote on the proposition which his noble friend had made, her majesty's counsel ought to be called in, and asked whether the absence of the witness Restelli would be injurious to their client's case?
Earl Grey
said, he never in his life entered on a question with more reluctance, or felt a greater degree of difficulty, than he experienced on the present occasion. Undoubtedly, if he had looked at the subject precisely in the same way that, his noble friend had done, he should have expressed, with all the warmth of his noble friend, his indignation at the extraordinary circumstance that had occurrred; for he must say, that by the explanation of the noble and learned lord at the table, it appeared that they were now placed in a situation in which, according to the noble and learned lord's own statement, substantial justice could not be done. What was the statement of the noble and learned lord r* He stated, that by the abduction of the witness at the present moment, and the impossibility of producing him now, an injury' might be done to her majesty's defence, which it was out of the power of that House easily to repair. Why then, if that was the situation of the case, if the Queen was deprived of those means of defence which, if resorted to at that moment might be rendered effectual, and if the necessary means of defence were not fully supplied to her hereafter, he would ask, whether it did not follow, as a plain and inevitable consequence, that the defence was, to a certain extent, injured, and that substantial justice could not be done? Under these circumstances, he felt himself placed in a situation of very great difficulty; he felt all that had been stated with respect to the disadvantage of interrupting the defence before this witness was called; and he should perhaps be better satisfied if his noble friend did not persevere in his motion. But feeling that the House was placed in a most unlooked-for situation—feeling that there was no possible remedy for the act committed by the agents for the prosecution—if he were asked on that ground, whether the proceeding ought to be continued, her majesty being deprived of those means of defence which ought to be afforded to her, he should, however reluctantly, be obliged to assent to this pro-
612
613
614
615
The Earl of Liverpool
said, if the fact really were, that, from the circumstance which had occurred, substantial justice could not be done to her majesty, he would agree with the noble earl, that the proceeding should be suspended altogether. But the noble and learned lord on the woolsack did not state that substantial justice could not be done. He had said, on the contrary, that the consequence of the event in question might possibly be beneficial to her majesty. The noble and learned lord exemplified the position in this way, and he considered the reasoning to be correct—namely, that they were bound to give her majesty the full and entire benefit, as far as she was concerned, of all the evidence adduced against the testimony of Restelli. And although it might be possible that his evidence with respect to her majesty could, if doubted, be explained, that still, under the circumstances of the case, such explanation should be entirely put out of the way. Here, therefore, her majesty might
616
617
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he was very anxious to state his feeling upon what had passed in the course of this discussion, and upon the situation in which the House was placed. He must, in the first place, observe, that the motion of the noble earl arose out of a complete misrepresentation of what had fallen from the noble and learned lord. He had never said, and he (lord Lauderdale) had never understood him to say, and could not conceive how any man could have supposed him to say, that it was impossible that substantial justice could be done to her majesty because Restelli was withdrawn. The proposition was so absurd in itself, that it was impossible that the noble and learned lord could have uttered it: on the contrary, he had urged, that it was not improbable that the circumstance might turn out advantageously to the Queen. And, what was the nature of the proposition to rectify this supposed injustice? It was this—that after the whole of the evidence in favour of the bill
618
The Earl of Morley
said, he hoped to be spared the pain of coming at that moment to a decision on the important question submitted to them. The report of the secret committee was this—that it was important to the honour of the country that the truth or falsehood of the charges against the Queen should be fully investigated, and that it was the opinion of the committee, that the best mode of proceeding was by a legislative measure. After that unfortunate necessity had been imposed on them of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of those charges, he knew of no mode so satisfactory as by the machinery of a legislative-measure, without intimating in the most remote
619
Lord Alvanley
said, that if the person who had sent Restelli out of the country were found to be connected with the Milan Commission, he should not be easily persuaded that it was a mere error of judgment that gave rise to that act.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, the person who had sent away Restelli was Mr. Powell.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that he wished the following question to be submitted to the counsel for the Queen; whether the immediate examination of Restelli was material to their case? He was anxious, in the first instance, to hear the opinions of the learned gentlemen upon this point; and he should then be better enabled to judge what step ought to be taken. Though nothing, not even the speeches of counsel, could alter his opinion, that, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of the House, it ought not to proceed further in this inquiry, yet he felt bound to submit with deference to the opinions expressed by noble lords more experienced than himself. For this reason, he should not press to a division the motion he had offered; though he was convinced that public feeling bad long ago had enough of the proceedings of the House upon this subject. The first hour the public should learn that their lordships had determined to quash this business, it would be hailed by an unanimous acclaim of joy and gratitude from one end of the country to the other.
The Earl of Blesington
felt it necessary to make a few observations, It had been very properly asked, who was the individual who bad sent Restelli to Italy;
620
Lord Holland
owed it to himself and to the noble earl opposite, to assure the House, that at the time he made his remarks, and before the noble earl had spoken on the subject, he was satisfied that the noble earl was neither directly nor indirectly a party to the transaction. He founded this conviction upon the character he entertained of the noble earl; for though, on many occasions, they were in political hostility, he was ready to acknowledge that on neither side of the House did he know any man less capable of doing what was dishonourable or unbecoming. If he had thus thought before the noble earl had spoken, his opinion was more than ever confirmed by the manner in which the noble earl had met the question. While, however, he acquitted the noble earl of the slightest participation in any thing like intrigue or conspiracy, his feelings upon the subject remained unaltered. After the disclaimer of the noble earl, and a few minutes calm reflection, he still felt bound to say, that the noble earl, on this occasion and others had undertaken to do more for the House than experience showed he was able to perform. The noble earl admitted the proceeding now complained of to be culpable; but when he gave the pledge that no witnesses should leave the country, he ought to have fairly avowed, that he had no power to retain them, that they might, if necessary, be subjected to prosecution for perjury. If the noble earl had thus confessed that there were certain inferior persons, over whom, in this respect, he had no control, the House would, probably have adopted a resolution very different from that to which it had arrived. It had, in fact, relied upon the assurance
621
622
ergo,
623
Earl Grey
observed, that, as Mr. Powell's name had been mentioned, he ought
624
Then John Allan Powell,
esq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by the Lords as follows:
Earl Grey.
—Were you employed under the Commission of Milan? I was.
625
626
Lord Alvanley.
—Could not the families of the persons who are supposed to have been maltreated at Dover have applied at Milan to colonel Browne for intelligence upon the subject of the witnesses? They certainly could have applied to colonel Browne for intelligence, and many of them did, as I understand, apply to colonel Browne; he gave them the best assurances he could, but they were not satisfied with those assurances; the reports of maltreatment came from various quarters. I have received depositions of the relations of persons here, in which they depose to having heard of serious injuries received by their relations, and notwithstanding all the assurances which they received to the contrary from colonel Browne, they were not satisfied with those assurances.
Lord Erskine
The Lord Chancellor
hoped the House would not so suddenly call upon him lo give his opinion, whether a question so material were fit or unfit, in its present shape, to be put to counsel. It was this,—"Whether the counsel for the Queen think it convenient to the case of her majesty, that Restelli should be immediately called and examined?" He doubted whether this question could be put, as at present worded; at all events, it seemed to him that, if put, it ought to be followed up by requiring the counsel for the Queen to state the grounds for their opinion.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, October 14, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the bill, intituled "An Act to deprive
627
Then John Allan Powell
, esq., was called in, and farther examined as follows, by the Lords:
Earl of Carnarvon
.—You have stated, that Restelli was sent to Milan on Thursday or Friday after the adjournment of the House, that was on the 14lh or 15th of September? On the 14th or 15th of September. I left town early on the morning of the 15th, the Friday, I believe, but I am not certain, that Restelli went the preceding evening, but I did not see him go.
628
The witness was directed to speak from his own knowledge.
To my own personal knowledge there has not been.
To the best of your knowledge and belief?
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdale
considered this examination irregular. He could not conceive the object of making inquiries respecting persons who had come from Italy, but hail not been examined. He also protested against an examination of the agent of a party in a cause. He did not think their lordships could, consistently with the principles of law, call an agent before them, and examine him as to every step which he took in his client's case.
The Earl of Liverpool,
without entering into the consideration of the question immediately before the House, had no hesitation in saying, that he was fully of opinion that any persons who had been brought here as witnesses, and who had not been examined, might be sent back. Indeed, it was his wish that they should be all sent back; and were he asked as to his belief, he would say, that several who had not been examined had returned.
Earl Grey
said, his noble friend on the cross-bench (lord Lauderdale) seemed totally to misapprehend the object of the examination. What was the situation in which the House was placed? It was proved, that an agent in support of the bill had, contrary to his general instructions, and contrary to his duty, sent away one of the witnesses who had been examined at the bar. That agent had admitted his having done so, and, in justification, said, that he had so sent him for the purpose of giving assurance to the families of the persons who were in this country to give evidence in support of the bill, who had been, it was stated, very much alarmed by what had happened at Dover. Now, what was the object of the examination of his noble friend? To ascertain whether there was any validity in this excuse, set up for a step which was universally condemned, except, perhaps, by his noble friend on the cross-bench, but which he too would condemn if it proved to be unnecessary. In his questions relative to this measure, so generally repre-
629
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he had expressed his abhorrence of the proceeding; but the question was most objectionable in the manner in which it was put. It might be asked, whether any person who was present at Dover when the witnesses were ill-used, and who was also an Italian, had been sent to Italy besides Restelli? If he knew any thing of the law, one of the principles held most sacred was this—that an agent ought not to be required to disclose the confidential secrets of his client. To the question as he had defined it, he should have no objection.
The Lord Chancellor
thought it his duty to state, with respect to the matters now before their lordships, that they could not be too cautious in putting questions to an agent; as, if this were permitted on one side, justice required that the same licence should be granted to the other. The principle, as the noble earl had stated, was this—that an agent should not be called upon to disclose the affairs of his client. The noble earl ought to put the question thus:—Have you or not, sent any other person abroad equally qualified to do that for which Restilli has been sent abroad?" By putting the question thus, they might ascertain all that had been done, without inquiring into matters that ought to be concealed.
The Earl of Rosslyn
observed, that if the question was put in this shape, the witness might answer "No." But in that answer they would have only the opinion of witness as to the comparative qualifications of Restelli, and not the fact which they wanted; namely, whether at that period any unexamined witness had been sent back? Here their lordships
630
The Lord Chancellor
said, there might be many cases, in which, from the sacredness of the principle now contended for, difficulties might arise; but if facts could not be obtained without doing that which the law of England would not authorize, the evil must be submitted to. Such questions must not be put in any particular case, on account of the evil consequences to which such a departure from the established practice must lead.
Lord Holland
begged to ask one question of the learned lord on the woolsack relative to the principal in this cause. Was the secret committee or the House the principal. It had been said, that the House were the prosecutors, and if so, were they not entitled, as the principals, to examine their own agent?
The Lord Chancellor
.—Whatever the popular effect of the question put by the noble lord may be, I cannot allow myself to answer a question which the noble lord ought not to have put.
The Earl of Darnley
understood that a vast number of witnesses had been brought to this country who had not been examined at their lordships bar. For obvious reasons, it might not have been improper to send back this superfluous testimony. Such being the case, he was surprised that some of these unexamined witnesses had not been conveyed to Italy, where they could have answered every purpose that was to be answered by sending Restelli. It was said, that an account of the expense incurred was unnecessary when he had called for it.
The Earl of Liverpool,
though the point was certainly out of order, begged to mention, on the subject of expense, that he had given orders a fortnight ago for the preparation of the accounts referred to. He begged also to observe, in reply to some observations which he had heard, that it was true that more witnesses had been brought over than had been examined, and he had certainly given it as his opinion that the unexamined witnesses should be sent back. But he had ex-
631
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that there could be no question that the unknown prosecutor, whoever he might be, had the right of disposing of his own unexamined witnesses. There could be no objection to his doing so, for the act itself was open to no improper imputation; nor could the opposite counsel interfere to put any question respecting the disposal of the witnesses either to the agent or the principal; they could only ask, whether these unexamined witnesses had been sent away—a fact, which, when answered at the bar, could put them in possession of no new information, as that circumstance was already known.
The Earl of Carnarvon
again supported the relevancy of the question which he had put. The object of it was, to know the value of the explanation given by the witness of his conduct in sending off Restelli, contrary to the general understanding of all parties, and contrary to the express order of the House. If he could shew that not one only, but from fifty to sixty witnesses had been sent back, who could have carried the information for the conveyance of which Restelli was so improperly selected—persons too, who, by their own personal appearance, probably well clothed, and with pockets well lined, could have completely removed all apprehension as to the treatment of witnesses here—if he could establish that, of what value would the explanation of Mr. Powell be? The question was simply whether any witnesses had been sent back to Italy previous to the departure of Restelli, and he could not see what secret there was in this. If there was any secret in it, it was one well known at the Foreign office, where all these persons had obtained their passports, and to this great secret, therefore, all the persons connected with that office, must necessarily be parties.
Lord Auckland
understood it to be a rule observed in the courts below, that a question might be put to an agent, at the
632
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that the objection made to the question did not go upon the ground that it was necessary to protect the agent, but the principal. Although, therefore, the question might be put in the form suggested, yet he did not see how that would remedy the inconvenience, because it was not the protection which the agent owed to himself, but the privilege which was accorded for the safety of the principal.
Lord Ellenborough
could not allow that that principle which was held to be so sacred in other cases, was exactly applicable to the present proceedings? The principal in this cause he considered to be the state. The Attorney-general had to discover the truth and nothing else; and if, at any period of the proceedings, the counsel for the bill should be satisfied that a case could not be made out, it was their duty to state this to the House. The state being the principal, that House, as part of the state, it appeared to him, had a right to examine their own agent.
Marquis of Lansdown
.—Did you instruct Restelli to go to any other place or places than Milan? I have already answered that I did not.
Earl of Morley
.—Is the House to collect from your evidence of yesterday, that you applied yourself to the Foreign office for a passport for Restelli? I mentioned at the Foreign office that Restelli was to go as a courier.
633
Earl of Darnley
.—Do you consider that, as agent for this inquiry, the witnesses are all under your direction and control? Certainly not under my direction and control.
Lord Erskine
.—If your sole object in sending Restelli was, to quiet the apprehension of the families of persons whom they might be anxious for, how came you to send by him the papers to legalise at Milan, the legalising of which might create some delay, if he was to bring them back? I did not send the papers that he might legalise them; I sent papers by him to Milan to be legalised, that farther proof might be had of them; and I expected that those papers would be legalised in sufficient time for Restelli to bring them back here on or before the third of October.
Marquis of Lansdown
.—State what families of witnesses now in Cotton-garden you know to be resident at Milan? To be resident at Milan and the neighbourhood.
634
Lord Auckland
.—Can you state whether the friends of a witness named signor Cuchi were in a state of anxiety? I know nothing of that; I have no reason to believe one way or the other.
Lord Ellenborough
.—Did you send any letter to colonel Browne, by Restelli, on the subject of Restelli's mission? I did.
The Earl of Darlington
begged to remark to their lordships, that this witness had not been called in support of the bill, nor by the counsel for the defence, but by the House. In what capacity the House had called him, his lordship could not say. He had, however, been brought to the bar by an order of the House, and the noble lord would submit, that the counsel on both sides should be per-
635
Earl Grey
said, the reason why the wit ness had been called was very clear. A cir cumstance occurred which was calculated to obstruct the course of justice. A person had been sent out of the country, contrary to an understood pledge, and the present witness, with whom this was supposed to originate, was in consequence called to the bar. He saw no reason why counsel should not be at liberty to suggest any question they thought material.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the principle acted upon in all the courts below, should in like manner be observed by that House, acting either in a judicial or legislative capacity. Whether counsel suggested a question or not, their lordships might put it to a witness if they thought proper. He did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the question put by the noble lord, but he really thought that now, as well as upon other occasions since the commencement of these proceedings, they had done that which, if permitted in the courts below, it was impossible that substantial justice could be done. If counsel called a witness to the bar in any state of the proceeding, it was certainly the duty of the court to give him credit for thinking that it was for the interest of his client so to do. Their lordships might ask any question, at the suggestion of counsel, if they thought such question fit to be put. He apprehended, however, that no noble lord ought to put questions which, in the courts below, would not be permitted. No doubt it would, in many cases, be impossible for counsel to give a satisfactory answer to the court as to the importance of a question, but the safe rule was, to give them credit for putting no other but such as were material.
Earl Grey
.—You are understood to state, you are in possession of a letter from colonel Browne, giving an account of Restelii's illness? I am.
636
637
638
Lord De Clifford
.—Have any of the persons whom you have stated to have been ill-used at Dover, returned to Italy? None to my knowledge, except Restelli himself, who was ill-used.
Lord Kenyan
.—Did Restelli bring more than one set of witnesses to this country? I do not recollect, I have no knowledge of it.
639
The Earl of Liverpool
here interposed, and observed, that there could not be the least difficulty in communicating to the House the names of the witnesses, the alarm of whose families his journey to Milan was meant to allay, as well as the dates of the letters which were written for the purpose of bringing him back, whatever difficulty the witness might make, in communicating these facts in his character of agent.
Lord Kentyon
.—Am I to understand, that there is any other difficulty in your answering these questions than that which arises from your character as agent.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that this course of proceeding, if persisted in, would be fatal to the judicial inquiry in which they were engaged. They had called an agent to their bar, as a witness, who had been himself instrumental to bringing witnesses to support this bill; he begged only to ask, what would be their situation, if, from that confidential ascent, a contradiction was extracted to the witnesses, whom he had himself produced? He thought the whole of his testimony should be removed from their Minutes.
Mr. Brougham
.—I understand I am to be permitted to suggest some questions to the witness.
The Lord Chancellor
.—The Lords have not yet done with the witness.
The Earl of Darnley
.—You have stated, that you consider the witnesses for the prose-
640
Earl of Derby
.—You are understood to state, that you did not consider Restelli to be under your direction or control, under what authority did you take upon yourself to send Restelli from this country? As a person assisting, an agent, perhaps, I may call myself; a person assisting in the support of this bill; I conceived that I had a right to send Restelli; that I had that sort of implied authority.
641
Lord Kenyan
now suggested, that the witness should be directed to produce the list of the witnesses whom Restelli had brought to this country.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that as the witness could not speak to this subject of his knowledge, such list could not be evidence:
Earl of Winchelsea
.—Did you consider yourself as having any authority over Restelli to order him to go out of the country? If the man had refused to go out of the country, I certainly had no authority to order him; I even considered him at liberty to go if he pleased, and that I could not have stopped him; I conceived that he was under no legal restraint.
Mr. Brougham
.—Who is your client or employer in this case? [Cries of No, no!].
Mr. Brougham
.—My lords, it is a very important question, and I have no object in putting it except for the purposes of strict justice. It is most important for us to put this question to the present witness, as he is the very first that has appeared at this bar, in the course of the proceedings, who could give us any information upon the subject. Is it not of great importance to ask of this witness, who is the solicitor in this cause, who his client is, when we are acting as the counsel for a defendant open and avowed? If I knew who the person was,
non constat
642
643
644
Lord Chancellor
.—Were the communications from colonel Browne in writing? I may be allowed to state, that all the communications I have made, have been in writing.
Mr. Brougham
.—Did you not know that Restelli never knew one of those witnesses whom he brought over, nor their families, and never had in his life seen one of them before the journey? How can I know that.
645
Mr. Brougham
.—Did you not hear the whole of that evidence given by Restelli before you sent him? I am not sure that I heard the whole, because I frequently go in and out of this House, therefore I cannot take upon myself to say that I heard the whole; but I must beg to observe, that the sending Restelli had not reference merely to the families of those witnesses whom he brought over with him to Dover; the occurrence at Dover had occasioned an alarm to the families of all persons who were sent over, or to come over as witnesses in support of this bill.
646
Mr. Attorney General
.—Were you present in this House when the Attorney-general of the Queen stated, that he did not intend further to cross-examine any of the witnesses who had been called in support of the bill? I was, and heard him so state.
647
Examined by the
Lords;
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Was not Restelli along with the witnesses at the time of the riot at Dover? I understood he was; I understood so from him.
Marquis of Lothian
.—Was not Restelli himself maltreated at Dover along with the other witnesses? I understood they all were maltreated.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that for the purpose of putting on record the part he had taken, lie would move, that the examination of Mr. Powell be printed separately, as not being relevant to the issue of the present inquiry, it having been gone into for the information of the; House on a subject of complaint.
Lord Erskine
was anxious that their lordships should not stultify themselves. It was then near one o'clock, and this exanimation had continued from the beginning of the day, and their lordships were now called upon to declare that it ought not to have taken place. His noble friend had contended, that it ought to be printed separately, because it was irrelevant to the issue before the House; if that were a sufficient reason to entitle it to be sepa-
648
The Earl of Lauderdale
held this examination to be of a separate character from the rest of the proceedings, and one in which every rule of evidence had been violated. Their lordships had attempted to assimilate the rest of the proceedings to those observed in the courts of law, but here four Judges had opened the case, and then asked the opinion of counsel. The usual course in other cases was, for counsel to open the case, and ask the opinion of the Judges. He wished it to stand on their Journals, that one peer at last had not sanctioned a precedent, by which every rule of evidence was violate.
Earl Grey
said, that as he was one of the four Judges alluded to by his noble friend, he hoped he would not be found to adopt any conduct which did not become a Judge. At least he could assure his noble friend, that nothing should induce him to mimic the extreme mildness, moderation, and forbearance with which his noble friend had conducted himself during these proceedings. What had been clone by the noble lords alluded to, would have been done by any Judge, in any court, under the same circumstances. If any person was charged with having thrown an obstruction in the way of the defence, the person so charged would have been called up for contempt of court, and examined, before the case was permitted to proceed any further. As for the proceeding itself, it was one which they were bound to take in justice to the parties concerned, and upon all accounts it was fitting and proper that it should appear with the rest of the Minutes.
Lord Redesdale
observed, that what they had just heard at the bar could not stand as evidence one way or other, either in proof or disproof of the preamble of the bill. He was satisfied that no noble; lord would permit it to operate on his; mind as evidence.
The Earl of Donoughmore
, so far from thinking that this examination should be
649
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that if the proposition of his noble friend for printing the evidence in a separate form were adopted, the House would be placed in the situation of first inviting the counsel to take a part in the proceeding, and then coming to a vote, that
650
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was extremely important, that, when this House came to a decision upon evidence, or any other points, it should be distinctly understood, under what circumstances they came to that decision; because their proceedings would regulate those of the courts below, and it was of the utmost consequence that those courts should know, what weight was to be given to their decisions, by clearly apprehending the grounds upon which they proceeded. With respect to the question before the House, he certainly thought it would be convenient to agree to the proposition of the noble earl, for printing the evidence separately; for he understood from the clerk, that if it were printed in a separate form, it might be in a course of delivery early on Monday; but if printed with the other evidence, it would not be ready till a later period. There was one observation which he begged leave to make, with reference to what had fallen from a noble lord. This proceeding had been termed, as it was indeed daily called, an anomalous proceeding, because it was partly judicial and partly legislative. Now, he said, it was not an anomalous proceeding; a proceeding partly judicial and partly legislative was perfectly well known to the constitution of this country. As to the eloquence of judges, he was very unwilling to say any tiling upon that subject, because it had always been his opinion, that judges should not be eloquent. It was their duty to state facts plainly, and give a clear and impartial statement of the law upon those facts. As to what had been said of the intemperate zeal which had been manifested in the course of this proceeding, he knew I not what the eloquence of judges might I be, nor was he prepared to say, that some noble lords, speaking as they did yesterday, were liable to such an imputation; but one thing he certainly felt to be objectionable, namely, that there was a species of noise in the House yesterday, which, whether it were eloquence or not, he would venture to say no interpreter at their lordships bar could explain. Of this species of evidence he hoped he should hear no more. He would only add, for the satisfaction of noble lords,
651
Then Joseph Ptanta
Esq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows, by the Lords:
Earl of Carnarvon
.—Are you under secretary of state in lord Castlereagh's office? I am.
652
Earl of Darlington
.—In what capacity did you consider Mr. Powell to have applied for the passport for Restelli; in what capacity did you consider him as acting? As an agent on the part of the prosecution, certainly.
Earl of Darnley
.—Has Mr. Powell made any application to you, at any other time, for passports for other witnesses on the part of the prosecution to go away? Certainly not.
Mr. Brougham
.—Did Mr. Powell say any thing else to you respecting Restelli's going back to Italy at that time? As far as I recollect, he mentioned something about Reslclli's being a proper person to return to satisfy the families of the witnesses here, he made some statement of that sort, but I did not attend to that, I did not consider it as my business, I merely did the official act.
653
The Earl of Carnarvon
again drew their lordships attention to the question which he had already submitted. It did not, as he apprehended, call for any opinion of counsel upon the evidence; but a material fact having appeared in evidence—the fact of Restelli being sent out of the country, although it now appeared necessary for the ends of justice that he should be called back to the bar—this having appeared before their lordships, made it incumbent on them to inquire of the counsel, whether they were prepared to proceed to other parts of the case. He should therefore move, that counsel be called back, and informed of the fact; after which the Queen's counsel should be asked, whether they were now prepared to proceed with any other part of their case.
The Lord Chancellor
felt himself called upon, in the faithful discharge of his duty, to state to their lordships what ought now to be done. He was decidedly of opinion that, although her majesty's counsel might be called in, and informed of the absence of Rest ell the subsequent part of this question ought not to be put to the counsel. He would state the grounds of his opinion. If her majesty's counsel should think proper, after they were informed of the absence of Restelli, to make an application to their lordships, stating that they could not, consistently with the interests of their client, go on with the defence, it would be their lordships duty to call upon
654
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he should not oppose the amendment of the learned lord.
The Earl of Carnarvon
thought it ought to appear distinctly upon their lordships Journals, that Restelli had not absconded, but had been sent away by the direction of Mr. Powell. If this did not appear, their lordships would not communicate to the counsel a knowledge of the evidence which had been heard at their bar.
The Earl of Liverpool
had not the least objection to its being stated, that he had been sent away; but he thought their lordships were bound in justice to add,
655
Lord Holland
thought it unnecessary to inform the counsel of what bad already appeared in evidence. He could not perceive the advantage of gravely informing the counsel of facts which they had themselves been permitted to elicit from the witness.
The Earl of Liverpool
entirely agreed with the noble baron that it would be better to make no communication at all, but merely to call in counsel and desire them to proceed."
The Marquis of Lansdown
agreed that tin's would be the better course. The motion was objectionable upon another ground, because it would be an indirect acknowledgment that this House was satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Powell.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it was certainly somewhat doubtful whether the counsel could be considered as having been absent, inasmuch as they bad themselves taken a part in the examination of Mr. Powell.
Mr. Brougham
requested, that himself and the other counsel of her majesty might be permitted to withdraw for a few minutes, in order to consider how, under the present circumstances, they should proceed.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that in the extraordinary circumstances in which he and the other counsel for her majesty were placed, and under the new and insuperable difficulties by which they were surrounded, he felt it impossible to announce to their lordships any determination which they had to come to as to what future course they might feel themselves compelled to pursue in the further conduct of I their case, more than to state that they would to-day pursue a little further the line of examination in which they had been engaged yesterday.
Then Fillippo Pomi
was called in, and: having been sworn, was examined as follows, by Dr. Lushington, through the in terpretation of the Marchese di Spineto:
656
Mr. Attorney General
objected to the question. The witness ought to be asked, what did Restelli do?
Dr. Lushington
conceived the question to be perfectly regular.
Mr. Attorney General
—You cannot lead.
Dr. Lushington
—I do not mean to lead the witness.
Mr. Attorney General
—My lords, I apprehend that this is a leading question.
Mr. Denman
—I apprehend that it ought to be rather a leading question. Restelli has sworn that he offered no money to procure witnesses; and we have a right to ask a direct question, for the purpose of contradicting him.
657
Mr. Attorney General
objected to this question. A conversation about Demont could not be received in evidence.
Mr. Denman
submitted that, as a question likely to lead to important information with respect to transactions connected with this case, in which Restelli was engaged, it ought to be received.
Mr. Attorney General
—The witness has sworn that Demont was not present at the time, and therefore the question was irregular.
Mr. Denman
—The circumstance of Demont's not being present is of no importance whatever.
Lord Erskinc
observed, that the reason for asking the question was quite obvious, and it appeared to him to be one that ought to be answered. Restelli, it appeared, had taken an active part in this business, not only as a courier, but as an agent who procured witnesses. He was charged with having acted corruptly, and it was necessary to trace how far that corruption went. Therefore, whatsoever this man knew, that could inform their lordships on this part of the case, ought to be given in evidence, subject always to cross-examination and contradiction hereafter.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that, under the peculiar circumstances of the
658
The Witness
—No; because it was a few days after that he had with me this conversation.
Mr. Solicitor General
said, that he and his learned friends protested against putting a question of this description to the witness. It had been admitted that, if Restelli were here, it could not be put, unless he was himself called and examined to the fact. He contended that such was the legal rule. The question could not be put unless Restelli was called to the bar, and interrogated a3 to the fact. If Restelli, on being so interrogated, had denied it, then it would have been competent for the other side to call witnesses to contradict him. Such was the undoubted rule of law. But it was said, that because Restelli was absent, the counsel for the defence might go into a course of examination that otherwise could not be permitted. But why should this be allowed, when, in consequence of the unfortunate mistake with respect to Restelli, the counsel on the other side might make a proposition to their lordships for the postponement of the further proceedings on this bill until the return of Restelli? Is appeared to him to be fraught with great danger, if, on account of the accidental absence of this man, her majesty's counsel should be allowed to take a line of examination that was never before tolerated. They might ask questions, the witness knowing Restelli to be absent, which, if he were here, would perhaps be answered in a very different manner.
Mr. Denman
—How does the witness know that Restelli is not here?
659
Mr. Solicitor General
—He was now asked, how the witness knew that Restelli was not present? He did not state positively that the witness did know it; but if he were in such a situation that by possibility lie might know it, that was sufficient for his purpose; because it was clear that such knowledge might C3use a material alteration in the witness's evidence. When he heard Restelli called "a corrupt and profligate witness in this case," he would say, that, so far as the evidence went, there was no proof to bear out such an assertion. He had denied, on his oath, that he had participated in any transactions of such a nature; and witnesses, on the other side, had come forward, and sworn that he had. But he would ask whether, in this stage of the question, any person, viewing the proceedings that had taken place before their lordships, could fairly take on himself to say, before the evidence was finished, before the case was concluded, that this man was "a corrupt and profligate witness," or that he was proved to have been implicated in any transaction that ought to prejudice his evidence in the minds of their lordships? It was, he conceived, the duty of the counsel on the other side to make application to their lordships, as Restelli's evidence was material to the defence, for a postponement of the proceedings until he came back; but he thought it was wrong, during his absence, to suffer, on that account, an examination wholly inconsistent with the rules of evidence, and entirely unfit for the elucidation of truth, to be persevered in.
Mr. Denman
denied that her majesty's counsel were bound to make any application to their lordships for a postponement of these proceedings; all they had to do was, to make such exertions as they might deem fit for her majesty's defence, considering the peculiar circumstances in which she was now placed. And here he might be permitted to assure their lordships, that if Restelli had been in this country, it was the wish of her majesty's counsel to have produced him at the bar of the house, as Majoochi had been. Under the expectation that he would appear when called, her majesty's counsel had actually summoned the witness at the bar to follow him, before they were apprized of the fact that Restelli had been spirited away from this country. When her majesty's counsel were thus situated—when, without any error on their part,
660
Mr. Attorney General
maintained, that the question could not be put, for the reasons so forcibly advanced by his learned friend, which had not been met by any sufficient arguments on the part of her majesty's counsel. He had heard it repeatedly asserted, that this man, Restelli, was acting in the nature of an agent, for the purpose of procuring witnesses to attend at their lordships bar; and that, therefore, what he had stated as evidence
661
662
663
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he was not competent to decide, how far the question in dispute might be put if Restelli were present; but he did think, that Restelli, being absent for reasons with which the counsel on the other side had nothing to do, being absent from causes which, how-ever explained, left the
laches,
The Lord Chancellor
said, the witness had been asked whether any money had been offered to him, and he had given his answer to that question. It was, therefore, a matter for their lordships' consideration, whether the subsequent interrogatory was not stretching the inquiry too far. Perhaps it was not, if they considered how peculiarly circumstanced they were. With respect to the witness whose evidence was meant to be impeached, he was bound, until the moment that witness was confuted, to consider him as honest a man as any that had been produced in the course of this proceeding. If, in the end, he was contradicted, so as to put it out of his power to clear himself, then he
664
665
Dr. Lushington
Where did this second conversation take place? It took place on a morning that he called upon me, and we went together to the inn.
Mr. Cohen
—He has added these words, "and that she, Demont, had gained a great sum."
666
Then Joseph Planta,
esq. was again called in and further examined by the Lords as follows:
Then Fllippi Pomi
was again called in, and further examined by Dr. Lushington as follows:
Mr. Solicitor General
objected to this question as being wholly irregular. What had Riganti to do with the case?
Dr. Lushington
maintained the propriety of the question. If their lordships would turn to the 410th page of the
667
*
*
668
Mr. Denman
begged to add a few words
669
"spirited
670
Mr. Attorney General
began his reply: by complaining that the counsel on the other side, had, as usual, gone out of their way to attack individuals not before the House. They had animadverted especially upon the members of the Milan Commission; but he could tell his learned friends, and could assure their lordships, that, whenever the fit time should arrive for inquiring into the conduct of those
671
The Lord Chancellor
here interposed, and said,—I wish to know, whether any noble lord thinks that this question can be put. It would be quite wrong to stop the argument if any noble lord entertains a doubt upon the subject, but to me it seems the most extravagant proposition ever urged. Whether the prosecutor is invisible, as one learned gentleman asserts or so clearly seen that another learned gentleman can point him out as easily as a joint-stock company, I do not know; and whether that is language proper for the occasion is another matter. But whatever the House may think, whether the prosecutor be visible or invisible—whether this proceeding be or be not of a criminal nature—I deliver it as my opinion, without the slightest hesitation, that it is impossible to admit such a question.
Mr. Denman
wished, before the adjournment, to make an application to their lordships. Restelli had stated in his evidence, that Riganti had accompanied him to this country. He humbly submitted to their lordships, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the expediency of ascertaining, from the parties conducting the prosecution, whether or not Riganti was still in this country.
Mr. Solicitor General
apprehended, that the counsel on the other side had no right to interfere in the conduct of the case on the part of the bill, or to dictate to their
672
Mr. Denman
disclaimed any intention, either of interfering with the conduct of the bill or of dictating to their lordships. Neither had he asked, whether it was intended to call Riganti as a witness. But the question, which he had humbly submitted to their lordships consideration, was, whether, as Riganti had been stated by Restelli to have acted as an agent—
Mr. Attorney General
denied that Restelli had so described him.
Mr. Denman
maintained, that Riganti had been distinctly described by Restelli as having acted as an agent.
Mr. Solicitor General
contended, that all that appeared in the evidence of Restelli was, that Riganti had been employed as a messenger.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that if Riganti was in the country, it was in the discretion of those who oppose the bill, whether they would call him as a witness or not, and that it was also in the power of any peer to propose to call Riganti, at any period; but that that question could not be put by the House to the counsel in support of the bill, whatever information might be given in any other way.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, October 16, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the farther 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; Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then the counsel on both sides were asked, whether they had any objection to the examination of sir John Beresford being now interposed in the middle of the examination of Filippo Pomi; and the counsel stating that they had no objection:
673
Sir John Poer Beresford
, bart, was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows, by the Lords:
Earl Grey
.—Are you an admiral in his majesty's service? A rear admiral.
674
Lord Melville
.—Are their lordships to understand from you, that William Carrington, in point of fact, never was a midshipman of the Poictiers while you commanded that ship? Never.
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Was there any engagement that Carrington should be rated as a midshipman, or any understanding on that subject, at the time he came on board your ship? No, he was drafted, I believe, on board the Poictiers from another ship; I had never seen him till then.
Lord Chancellor
.—Did William Carrington leave the service in the year 1811? Yes, he did.
675
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Do you remember desiring Carrington to go down to the Thisbe, and ask for his papers? I do not remember that, it is ten years ago since this occurred; but I got him put on the Thisbe's books, in order to get his pay for him; therefore I think it is probable it was so, but I cannot charge my memory with it exactly; the Thisbe was the flag ship in the river.
Earl of Liverpool
.—Did you so act towards Carrington, or Carrington towards you, that Carrington could have been led to think he was a midshipman?
Lord Chancellor
.—Did Carrington, while he was on board the Poictiers, ever act as a midshipman? He never did. I should wish, injustice to Carrington, to answer the question, whether he was ever led to believe that he was hereafter to be a midshipman; he never was led to expect that from me. I am about to give my opinion, perhaps it is not evidence; I understand the noble lord's question to be, Have you any reason to believe that he was led to expect that from any body else? my answer was going to be, that the first lieutenant had so good an opinion of that man, I do not know what he might have held out to the man while I was absent; but I never held it out myself. I refer to lieutenant Alcock, now captain Alcock; I do not know that lieutenant Alcock did.
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Did you ever tell Carrington that he was to be on the quarterdeck; and do you recollect Carrington replying, that he did not wish to be on the quarterdeck, for he had no friends or money to support him on the quarter-deck? He never told me any such thing; and after I knew he was to be sir William Gell's servant, it was very unlikely I should propose to him to be an officer in the service.
676
Earl Grey
.—Did William Carrington apply to you at any time after he had left the Poictiers, respecting his pay? He did.
Lord Colville
.—Do you know that Carrington, whilst doing duty under your command on board the Poictiers, knew what his rating on the ship's books actually was at the time?
Mr. Brougham
humbly submitted that, for this witness to be called on to depose to what he knew of what the other witness knew, was not evidence, unless he was asked as to some fact which brought Carrington's knowledge within the witness's knowledge. As it stood, he thought the question a droll one.
Lord Colville
said, that he had put the question in consequence of Carrinaton's own evidence, that he believed himself to have been rated as a midshipman on board the Poictiers while under the commaud of sir J. Beresford. He had, therefore, good reason to ask, whether Carrington must not have been aware of his own rating; he thought he must have been. No man had a greater respect for the high legal talent of the counsel at the bar than himself, but he did hope that their lordships would not be of the same opinion with that learned gentleman. The learned counsel was not justified in saying that the question was a droll one.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it was not
677
Lord Chancellor
.—Do you know, from any fact or circumstance, within your own knowledge, that Carrington did know how he was rated? Every man and officer in the ship knew how they were rated, to the best of my knowledge and belief; I never hid the rating from any of them; but with six hundred people in the ship it is most impossible I can recollect the rating of every man ten years ago; but I believe he knew it.
Lord Combermere
.—Do you know whether Carrington ever messed with the midshipmen? He never did.
Earl of Winchelsea
.—Was the pay which you state you obtained for Carrington some time after he was discharged, either by personal application at Somerset-house, or by letter, the pay of a midshipman, or the pay of a quarter-master? I believe both; the pay of the midshipman's part of it, could only have been a few days, because he was discharged into a ship to get his pay as a midshipman; therefore for those two or three days he must have been paid; but the Navy-office books can best state this.
Lord Chancellor
.—According to the course and practice of the naval service, is not every man rated according to the duty he docs on board the ship? Generally speaking.
Duke of Clarence
.—During the continuance of William Carrington on board the Poictiers, was he on any occasion particularly recommended to your notice by the first lieutenant? Not that I know of; but he was a very great favourite of the first lieutenant's, being a very good man, and the first lieutenant was very 10th to part with him.
678
Earl Grey
—What was the name of your first lieutenant? Lieutenant Alcock, now a captain.
Mr. Brougham
trusted, in reference to the examination of Pomi on Saturday, that their lordships would allow him to state, that notwithstanding their lordships had appeared to be of opinion that the Queen's counsel could not cross-examine him as to the bribe attempted to be given to him by one Riganti, if he would submit to be the agent of Vimercati, one of the Milan Commission, although their lordships at the time seemed to object to the question intended to be propounded, her majesty's counsel did not wave it altogether, but reserved it to a future time, in case they should be afterwards able to show other acts of the same kind; and in case they should be able to arrive at that necessary and indispensable fact, of who the real party, the prosecutor in this case, was; without which information, looking at the peculiar situation in which her majesty stood, it did appear to him that it was absolutely impossible for them to pursue any step towards that pure and substantial justice, which ought to be the object of every judicial proceeding.
The Lord Chancellor
said, the witness (Pomi) had now been examined in chief, and also cross-examined. It was irregular to interpose between the examination and the cross-examination of a witness: whatever application the counsel might have to make hereafter would be then the subject of consideration.
Lord Calthorpe
rose, to express his great regret, that the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government did not take an earlier opportunity of saying distinctly, who was the prosecutor in the present case. It really did appear to him, that in the question now before the House—if they made it one of state, and in which the state was the aggrieved and complaining party—the Crown, as the head of the state, and not the king indi-
679
The Earl of Liverpool
felt himself called upon for some explanation, after the
680
681
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that the question which on Saturday it had been urged, ought not to be asked, and was not to be answered, was now asked, and had been answered. After the explanation of the noble earl opposite (afforded with his usual candour), something like an answer had certainly been obtained. He agreed with the statement of that noble earl; and it had convinced him, that in this proceeding throughout they were entertaining a bill which the House had been led to entertain at the suggestion of the noble earl, and of the king's ministers; and that the counsel at the bar appeared for the purpose of instituting such an examination, as should certify to their lordships whether the bill ought to pass or not. So far the explanation was to be admitted: but if the House was placed in the situation of having for its own convenience, and with a view to the accuracy of its own determinations, thought proper to create a party, and to place that party at the bar, it behoved them to consider in what way that proceeding, so established, affected the interest of the individual who was the client of the counsel at their bar. When
682
683
684
The Lord Chancellor
would repeat the substance of one observation, in which he had been led to state what he had stated with respect to the abstraction of Restelli, and the difference between a present and a postponed examination. The same principle applied to the cross-examination of a witness who had been already examined in chief. His lordship then proceeded to point out to their lordships the disadvantage of delaying the cross-examination of the witness last at their lordships bar, and wished that any discussion that was not instantly called for might be deferred till that was over. A noble marquis had said that the question which was put on Saturday had been put to-day. He differed from the noble marquis: the question of Saturday he took to be a very different one, and the answer of to-day was by no means applicable to it. Why this point should have been pressed so often, or whether there should have been any delay of an answer, was a question upon which he would make no observation except this—that his professional experience very often furnished him with good reasons for delay. The fact was neither more nor less than this—that his majesty was advised to lay certain papers before that House, and those who gave him that advice were responsible for it; those papers being sent down, were referred to a secret committee; the committee made a report, and after that report the noble earl thought proper to bring in a bill founded upon it. Now this, he maintained, was no prosecution; for neither was there any prosecutor, nor any petition presented against such measure. The noble earl was answerable to the country for bringing in that bill, as all those were who concurred in advising that course; and upon this statement he contended that he was justified in saying, here was no prosecution. What he wished their lordships to do was, to proceed forthwith with the cross-examination that had been deferred, and then any question arising upon it might be impartially discussed; and, in despite of all the world, he might say, he was sure that it would be impartially determined.
Lord Calthorpe,
in explanation, remarked, that what he meant to say was this:—that the noble earl, in relying upon the acquiescence of the House in his delay of
685
Earl Grey
said, he only wished to state his dissent from one part of the statement made by the noble earl (Liverpool) to whom he gave full credit for candour and openness. But he had asserted, that those of their lordships who had opposed the appointment of a secret committee had contended, that a bill should be brought in upon the responsibility of ministers. What those noble lords, however, did contend for, was, not that a bill, but that a charge should be brought in upon the responsibility of ministers; and that ministers should not shelter themselves under the report of a secret committee. To the mode of proceeding by bill he had always had an invincible objection. With respect to the question immediately before their lordships, he thought that the noble earl opposite had made no answer whatever to the clear and convincing statement of his noble friend (the marquis of Lansdown), as to the difficulty, if not inability, of the learned counsel to prove the conspiracy, arising out of the circumstance of their not being enabled to cross-examine the agent of the party to the fact. Where agency was to be proved, that agency it was rendered nearly impossible to trace, if it could not be also proved who was the principal in it. From what had passed, he must assume, that government were the principals; and, that being assumed, it was to be inferred that every person employed by government in this business was their agent. Hence, it followed, that colonel Browne was an agent. He did not know whether they might consider Hanoverian ministers as agents; but colonel Browne was clearly one. Well then—a question had been put with respect to the conduct of one Riganti, who had been sent by colonel Browne for the purpose of procuring witnesses to go to Milan. When grounds were made to appear at their lordships bar for the assertions that had been advanced by counsel with respect to bribery, he apprehended that he must consider the government as being the principal, colonel Browne as their agent, and Riganti as employed by colonel Browne. There was, at least, that degree of bribery proved that they (their lordships) must know how far persons so
686
The Earl of Carnarvon
considered that the subject now before the House was connected with a sort of collateral inquiry, which he agreed with his noble friend in thinking it was highly important to go into. In the circumstance related as occurring at Carlsruhe, there was but one witness Barbara Kress: she was sent for, it appeared, to Frankfort, to be examined by the Hanoverian minister, and was afterwards sent to Hanover. It was clear therefore that other persons had been employed in that witness's examination besides the Milan Commission. Who were they? or were ministers responsible for them as well as the Milan agents? How was the conduct of agents to be thoroughly sifted, unless it was known who those agents were, and by whom authorized? Perhaps it might appear, that there were other parties at work not connected with the tribunal of the Milan Commission. Were those parties under the control of ministers, or were they not? Were they included in that responsibility which ministers were ready to avow? It was idle to proceed in the cause, unless this information were fairly and fully communicated. How else were they to see their way through a series of proceedings in the collection of this evidence, in which both German diplomacy and German dexterity were mixed up in one confused mass? How else could it be known whether or no, compulsion had been used by parties in that almost invisible empire? It was most material to know whether cor-
687
688
"Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike—
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike."
Then Filippo Pomi
was again called in, and cross-examined by the Attorney General as follows, through the Interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
689
690
volontariamente.
691
of
692
693
694
695
Examined by the
Lords.
Earl Grey
.—Was any proposition made to you to give evidence against the Queen, and by whom? No.
Mr. Attorney General
objected to the answer which the interpreter was translating.
Earl Grey
conceived the interruption to be irregular. A question had been put, and an answer given; but, while the interpreter was translating it, he was interrupted by the learned gentleman. He thought it was the duty of the House and of the learned gentleman to hear the answer, and if it were then deemed illegal, it could be struck out.
Mr. Attorney General
said, he would, for his own justification, call the recollection of their lordships to page 97 of the Minutes,
*
*
696
The Lord Chancellor
directed the preceding question and answer to be read, which was done.
Mr. Attorney General
.—My objection is, that any evidence between the witness and another person, not a party here, cannot be received.
The Lord Chancellor
.—Mr. Solicitor-general, do you wish to be heard?
Mr. Solicitor General
said, he could not think it necessary to trouble their lordships with any remarks upon this question. From what the evidence disclosed, it appeared, that all the concern which Riganti had in this business was, to carry a message from Vimercati to Restelli. Farther than that, Riganti was quite a stranger to the subject of the present investigation; upon what principle, then, could any thing said by him to the witness be admitted as evidence? According to every rule of evidence which he had ever read or heard of, such testimony was totally inadmissible, and therefore he concurred in the objection urged by his learned friend. Upon the validity of that objection, it would be for their lordships to decide. In urging the objection, he and his learned colleague felt that they had done their duty, and having so done, they were quite indifferent about the result.
Mr. Attorney General
referred to the objection urged upon this subject on Saturday, when it was maintained upon
697
The Lord Chancellor
inquired whether the counsel for her majesty had any observations to offer upon this subject?
Mr. Brougham
declared, that he should be perfectly satisfied to leave it altogether to their lordships to decide upon the question, and upon the propriety of the attorney-general's interruption of the witness. Riganti was, he maintained, so connected with this business, as to render what the witness said admissible evidence. His connection, indeed, and agency upon this business, must be concluded from the evidence in page 410.
*
*
698
699
in pari materia,
Dr. Lushington
requested leave to say a few words in support of the question that had been put. It would not have been asked if it had not been for what occurred on Saturday; and looking at the manner in which the question was then disposed of, and what had just happened, he was in doubt whether he had not entirely mistaken the rules of evidence on this occasion He did not mean to contend, that this man, Riganti, was a general agent of the Milan Commission, but that he was employed as an agent for particular purposes—that he was employed to procure witnesses for the support of those charges—and he conceived their lordships ought to hear any evidence that could be produced on this occasion, with respect to any illegal means that might have been resorted to for bringing forward witnesses in support of the bill. Now, the question that had been put, as it appeared to him, came strictly within the rule that had been laid down, because it went to procure, for their lordships' information, an account of the manner in which Riganti
700
701
Mr. Attorney General
said, he was sure their lordships would pardon him for offering a short reply to the representations of his learned friends who had just argued this question; and he must confess, that he was somewhat astonished at the bold assertions made by those learned gentlemen—assertions which the evidence entirely negatived. He almost doubted whether his learned friend who last addressed their lordships had made himself acquainted with the evidence; because, if he had, he must have known that the administration of oaths by the Milan Commission, so far from being proved by evidence, was absolutely negatived. Restelli stated to their lordships, that no oath was administered to him; and as far as he recollected, every witness who was asked the question, denied the fact. He believed that no oath was administered by the Commission to the witnesses at the time they made their depositions.
Dr. Lushinglon
here interrupted the learned gentleman. He would at once refer him to page 227 of the Minutes, where it was stated by Raggazoni that he was sworn before the Commission. The evidence on this point was as follows:—
702
*
Mr. Attorney General
maintained, that, taking the whole of the deposition of Raggazoni, it could not be said that he was sworn by the Milan Commission, as it only appeared from the evidence referred to, that the witness took the oath himself. [Here there was a laugh, accompanied by some exclamations of "Oh! oh!"].
The Lord Chancellor
said, he believed that if a counsel had been so treated in any of the courts of Westminster-hall, he would have instantly left the court.
Mr. Attorney General
resumed.—He wanted to bring the fact before their lordships, and to call on them to look minutely to the evidence as it stood on the Minutes. Restelli denied expressly that, he had been sworn. If they examined the evidence of Ragazzoni by itself, and, still more, if they examined it in connexion with the evidence of other witnesses, the matter would at once be explained. The question put was, "Are you ready, if required, to swear to the truth of this deposition?" he answered "Yes;" and he then took out the cross, and kissed it himself. But this was no proof that any oath was administered by Vimercati. On the contrary, their lordships would find that the question relative to the administration of an oath was repeatedly put in the course of the evidence, and as repeatedly negatived. He would again state to their lordships, with perfect confidence, that if they examined the evidence fairly and candidly, they would see, that though the witnesses were asked, were they ready to swear to their depositions? yet no oath was put to them. They were all asked, if they were ready to swear; and they all answered that they were, if called on to depose upon oath. In saying this, he stood in their lordships judgment; and, of course, his assertion would go for nothing, if it were not borne out by evi-
*
703
704
ex concessis,
*
705
The Lord Chancellor
thought it was his duty to state, that, according to any understanding he had of the principles and law of evidence, these declarations could not, in the present stage of this proceeding, be admitted; and, if any noble lord could entertain an opinion, that, according to the course and practice of the Courts below, the view which he (the lord Chancellor) took of the subject could be so far contradicted as to have it shown that the practice of those Courts would let in such evidence, it would be competent to that noble lord to have the advice of the learned judges on the question, and he would feel obliged to the noble lord who called for that opinion, in order that he might thereby correct his own. So far from his mind being satisfied with what passed on Saturday last, he did assure the noble earl (Grey), that, recollecting what had occurred on that occasion, he had since paid much attention to the subject. There was a great deal of good sense in a few words of bad Latin,—"Qui pauca considerat facile errat;"—and he had not failed since that time, to put to himself several questions on the subject—to reconsider it, in fact, as it has undergone so little discussion. In the first place, he would call back their lordships' recollection with respect to what passed as to the witness Restelli. He stood on their Minutes as having given particular evidence—and witnesses were called to their bar (and, he thought most properly and justly called to their bar, in the absence of Restelli, considering that absence not to have been occasioned by the party opposed to the bill), in order to state declarations that had been made relative to that person,
706
707
*
*
708
Earl Grey
said, that the noble and learned lord had correctly stated, that when he proposed that this question should be put to the witness, he did it in consideration of the decision of their lordships on this point on Saturday last, not believing that that decision was right in the peculiar circumstances of this case. He had been desirous that the attorney-general should state such objections as might occur to him, that their lordships might deliberately consider the subject, with the manner in which the attorney-general had supported the objection. The objection was ably made by the attorney-general, and ably supported by the noble and learned lord. He might perhaps expose himself to the imputation of pertinacity, when he still persisted in entertaining the opinion that the question ought to be put. The statement of the noble and learned lord as to the practice in the courts below was, no doubt, quite correct; and if the point were submitted to the learned judges, their decision would be such as the noble and learned lord had stated, and therefore he had no wish to refer the point to them. He would admit that, according to strict and technical rules of law in other courts, the question could not be asked. But the question was here, whether their lordships were bound by those strict and technical rules, or whether the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, did not require some relaxation of those rules, and authorise them to de what, in other circumstances, would be irregular? He had admitted before, that it was desirable, that the House should restrain itself as much as it was possible by the rules of law; but the House was not to be restrained from a departure from those rules when circumstances justified such a departure. The question was, then, whether they were here so situated as to be authorised to depart from strict rules of law? What was their situation? It was admitted on all
709
710
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he understood the noble lord to admit, that if the question arose respecting a conspiracy in the courts below, he did not dispute the law of his noble and learned friend, but to contend, that upon the specialty of the case, upon the extraordinary circumstances of this bill, their lordships ought to be induced to depart from the course which they had hitherto adhered to, and which was always adhered to in the courts below.—Now, this appeared to him a most awkward period to adopt a proposition of this nature, when hitherto they had governed all their proceedings by the understood general laws of evidence. He admitted, that there was no absolute obligation to adhere to those laws; it might be often necessary to open a wider door for evidence than those laws allowed. As their legislative functions were unlimitable, it was impossible to say in what situation they might find themselves to which the ordinary rules of law could not apply. The necessity of departing from those rules was to be deprecated, and therefore their lordships had imposed on themselves the shackles of law. He put it therefore to the House, whether, in this part of the case, they would suffer questions to be put which might lead to an inquiry that would be interminable, or at least most extensive. It was not this particular question only that they would be called on to allow. If their lordships departed here from their usual course, they must depart from it on every important inquiry that could be suggested. The noble earl had said, that they were not to be bound by the nice and technical rules of law. But this was not a nice and technical objection, as many objections, he admitted, were, but was founded on the eternal principles of justice itself. It was this—that where the principal was to be affected by the acts of the agent, there ought to be the clearest evidence of agency. Speaking generally—for he now did not allude to this particular case, but speaking generally—nothing was easier than for one side to employ as agents
711
712
Lord Erskine
said, that the question for their lordships to consider was, whether the putting of the question proposed was not necessary to their information when they came to make up their minds on the fate of the bill? The noble lord had stated, that the House having bound itself to be regulated by the rules of the courts below, it was now too late to depart from the course they had so laid down for themselves. To that he was willing to assent, if the question on which the debate arose did not stand upon different grounds from the other parts of the evidence. That it did so his noble friend had already succeeded in showing. Before he proceeded any further, he was anxious to correct a misstatement which had gone abroad, with respect to some expressions stated to have been used by him on a former occasion. He had never said that the Milan commission, unexamined as the question was up to this moment, was concerned in the subornation of persons to swear against her majesty. He had never said any such thing; on the contrary, he could bear testimony to the character of Mr. Cooke, with the whole of whose professional life he was acquainted, and he had no reason to believe that the other gentlemen connected with him were not also persons of excellent character; but this he would say, that if they were angels, instead of honest men, the evidence might be contaminated before it came to them. It was for their lordships to consider, whether, after so much of the evidence had been shaken, they would now prevent a question from being put, the answer to which might be of such great importance—whether they were prepared to say that the proofs of conspiracy ought not to be inquired into. For his own part, he thought they should, and he would caution the House against coming too hastily to the opposite conclusion. He would beg to recall to the recollection of the House the candid and honourable declaration of the noble earl opposite, that their decision should be founded upon pure and unimpeachable testimony alone, and that whatever was doubtful should be dismissed from their minds. His own opinion was not more entitled to consideration than the opinion of any of their lordships, except so far as the habits of his professional life might be supposed to afford him an advantage. On looking to the evidence, as far as it respected Riganti, he would ask, whether,
713
714
Lord Redesdale
said, that the experience of ages had proved that the rules of evidence, as established in our courts of law, furnished the best means of ascertaining the truth. If, therefore, their lordships in this instance admitted evidence in contradiction to those rules, he contended that they would not proceed in the course which was best calculated to ascertain the truth. In all questions of agency, it was of the utmost importance to ascertain how far the party was to be considered as an agent, and to what extent his acts bound the principal. Suppose he were to say to any person, "John Thomas, I want to speak to you," or "John Thomas, desire such a person to come to me," would any man pretend to say, that by this act he constituted John Thomas, or the other person, an agent? Supposing therefore that Vimercati gave such a direction to Riganti, was that any proof of agency on the part of Riganti? It merely appeared that Riganti was employed to desire Restelli to go to Vimercati, as any other person might have been employed. To prove agency, it was not sufficient merely to show that the party was somehow or other connected with the principal, but it must be proved that he was fully authorised by the person, who might suffer from his acts. The strict rules of evidence had been followed on the part of the prosecution; and if the counsel for the defence were allowed to deviate from them, where, he would ask, would be the consistency or equity of their lordships' proceedings? Equality was justice, and would this be equality? This was a decisive ground, upon which he should strenuously oppose any deviation from the strict rules of evidence.
Earl Grey
regretted that so much of their lordships' time bad been consumed in the discussion of this question, and though he certainly remained unconvinced by any of the arguments which he had heard in the course of that discussion, he rose for the purpose of stating, that in order to avoid any further consumption of their lordships' time, he had no wish to take the sense of the House upon the question. He should wish it to be merely put and negatived.
The Lord Chancellor
said, there were one or two observations which he was extremely anxious to make, inconsequence of what had fallen from his noble and learned friend. His noble and learned friend had referred to what he (the lord
715
Lord King
.—Did Restelli say to you, that Demont either had received or was to receive a large reward for giving evidence against the Queen.
716
Mr. Cohen
.—He added these words: "And that, she, Demont, had gained a great sum."
The Marquis of Lansdozon
asked the counsel, whether the witness they proposed now to call was with reference to Restelli.
Mr. Brougham
stated, in reference to what passed on Saturday, that he was not at present prepared to state what course he should pursue with regard to the general Case; but that he was for the present proceeding with Evidence to prove how the Case against her majesty had been prepared.
The Marquis of Lansdozon
added, that his reason for putting this question was, that he intended to submit a motion to the House on the subject of the correspondence of Mr. Powell with colonel Browne, and for this purpose he begged that her majesty's counsel would inform him when they bad concluded their present course of examination.
Mr. Brougham
replied, that they would not omit to do so.
The Earl of Carnarvon
wished to know from the noble earl opposite, whether any person had been employed by government in Hanover to take depositions; he alluded especially to the testimony of Barbara Kress.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that he must answer the question quite off hand, but as far as his recollection went, the only agent employed by the British government in Hanover had been, the British minister.
Then Bonfiglio Omati
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Wilde as follows, through the Interpretation of the Marchese di Spimeto.
717
Mr. Solicitor General
objected to this course of inquiry. He apprehended no conversation between Vimercati and the witness at the bar could be evidence as to the charges contained in the preamble of this bill. He should be glad to hear what arguments could be urged on the other side.
Mr. Brougham
said, it was convenient, not to say usual, before being called upon to defend a particular line of examination, to hear, not only the objections, but the grounds of the objections which were made to it.
The Lord Chancellor
said, the counsel certainly had a right to hear the objection before they could be called upon to answer it.
Mr. Solicitor General
said, the ground of his objection was so palpable, that he had thought it unnecessary to state it. He wished to know upon what principle of law any declarations of Vimercati could be made evidence in this proceeding. Supposing Vimercati to have been engaged as an attorney or advocate, his declarations could not be used for the purpose of establishing any fact. Unless he heard some arguments on the other side, all he could do was, to state, that he did not know how, according to the usual course any conversation between Vimercati and the witness could be evidence. If he were asked to go more into detail, he confessed that he was unable to do so; because he understood it to be one of the first principles of law, that a conversation which had taken place between a witness and a party who stood in the situation of an advocate or attorney, could not be made use of as evidence for the purpose of affecting the principal.
Mr. Wilde,
in support of his question, observed, that he apprehended that it would not be made a question whether Vimercati was or was not an agent. On the evidence he stood a known and accredited agent of the Milan commission.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it would perhaps save time, to refer to those parts of the evidence which went to support that allegation.
Mr. Wilde
said, he was prepared to do
718
719
720
Mr. Brougham
said, he felt it necessary to say only a few words in addition to the very strong and clear statement of his learned friend. He was not much surprised, that those who had been so loth to allow him to speak of principals, should now be reluctant to permit him to detect the agents; for it was enough for the Queen's counsel to show, that they had got firm hold of an authorized agent, to warrant them in asserting that the principal was bound by his acts. He was not bound to bring home to this agent the authority of ministers, or of any other persons under whom he acted; it was enough to prove, that Vimercati acted under those who formed the Milan commission, established for the purpose of hunting the continent for evidence. In whose company was this advocate found? He was always seen co-operating with colonel Browne, the head of the Milan commission, and indisputably an agent. Mr. Powell, another member of that body had been looked upon so much as a confidential agent, that he was allowed to keep back information under that pretext. Next came Vimercati, upon whom a panegyric might now be expected, as none had been yet pronounced; for it was enough to bring the conduct of an agent in question, for the other side immediately to pronounce an eulogium upon him, as had been shrewdly observed by Mr. Wilde. Perhaps, however, it might be wiser if the attorney and solicitor general postponed a little the expression of their admiration. He wished the solid proof to precede it; and if that were received, it might render needless the empty praise. He was not sure that Vimercati was a member of the Milan commission; but certain he was, that a witness was never examined without his assistance; and. his agency was not to be disputed, unless the other side meant to go the length of contending, that there was no Milan commission. Granting that the acts of Vimercati could not be examined, because
721
Mr. Solicitor General,
on the other side observed, that after the experience he had had of his learned friends, he was not at all surprised at the variety of topics they had introduced. He would not go out of his way to follow them, but would discharge his duty by shortly and simply stating the grounds on which he rested his objections to the testimony offered. Still he must say, on behalf of Mr. Powell, that he was a professional agent in support of the bill; that in that character he had carried on a correspondence with colonel Browne; and that he was bound, as a professional man and as a gentleman, not to disclose voluntarily the nature of that correspondence. On this account, he had represented the situation in which he was placed to the House: personally, he had no backwardness in answering any of the questions put to him; but it was his duty to state the objections that operated upon his mind. Whenever questions on evidence arose, the other side pursued a most extraordinary course—nothing
722
The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, October 17, 1820.
The order of the day being read for
723
The Lord Chancellor
proceeded to inform their lordships, that towards the close of the proceedings of yesterday, a question, which was put by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Queen against the bill, to a witness then under examination, had been objected to by the learned counsel who appeared in support of the bill. The question might be represented to their lordships—at least he thought it a convenient mode of conveying it to their lordships' minds to represent it, in these terms: "Whether a certain person of the name of Vimercati, in order to induce other persons to come forward as witnesses, or to furnish testimony against the party accused by the bill, had not offered a corrupt inducement for that purpose?" An objection was very properly taken by the learned counsel for the bill, which objection was answered by the counsel on the other side, and it became the business of their lordships to determine if that question could or could not be put. For his own part, he must say, that the case of Vimercati might differ much from those cases which had been before argued, and on which the House had ruled, that the acts of agency were not so proved, as that they ought in any manner to affect the case. In stating his opinion upon the immediate question to their lordships, he should be extremely sorry to assume that which had been offered by the learned counsel who raised the objection; namely, that Vimercati being only the counsel, or professional agent to the Milan commission, his acts could in no wise affect the proceedings of that commission. He should be extremely sorry to conclude upon so narrow a view of the case. Looking at the evidence, he conceived, that there was sufficient proof apparent that Vimercati was, in fact, an agent of the Milan commission; and an agent their lordships must consider him. Upon this understanding of the case, he wished to have the opinion of the learned judges, and he would therefore propose a question for their decision, one which he conceived to be absolutely necessary for his own and their lordships' guidance, that they should know what would be the law and the course of proceeding upon a similar case in the courts below, taking the
724
Earl Grey
said, that before their lordships came to a decision on this question, he wished to offer a few words. If the noble and learned lord wished to propose the question to the learned Judges merely for his own satisfaction, he should on that ground not object to it. But he must declare he was of opinion, that even if the Judges did decide that, according to the rules of evidence in the courts below, the examination proposed by the Queen's counsel could not be allowed, their lordships were not bound to act on that decision. On the contrary, he would contend that, in consequence of the knowledge of facts which had come to them from the bar, they were bound to inquire into the truth of the allegations. He was, however, not much disposed to oppose the proposition of the noble and learned lord, because, whatever might be the answer given by the learned Judges, he should propose to their lordships to proceed in
725
non constat,
726
The Earl of Liverpool
wished to offer a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the noble earl. In the first place, as to the objection to confining the
727
728
Lord Erskine
thought their lordships ought not, from a consideration of what might be the future consequences of their
729
730
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he could not but deprecate the line of argument pursued on the other side of the House, by which all the rules of evidence were
731
functus officio,
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, he felt great diffidence in rising to address their lordships on this question, after the able manner in which it had been discussed by his noble and learned friend near him (lord Erskine) and his noble friend below him (earl Grey). His noble friend who had just sat down was, however, of a different opinion. He was of opinion that their lordships ought to be bound by the rules of evidence in the courts below, because the experience of ages had shown that they were in general best calculated for the discovery of truth. He admitted the fact, and he admitted the ground on which his noble friend had placed his argument. He was of opinion, that the rules of the courts below were the best that could be invented for regulating proceedings between two parties, and those parties too, fairly opposed to each other. He could not but feel the necessity for
732
733
734
735
Lord Manners
considered the question now before the House to be one of great importance. It was this—whether, under the circumstances of the present case, they would be justified in making it an exception from those rules, which were prescribed for governing cases of the like character in the courts below? It was expedient, in his opinion, to consider the reason upon which these rules, as applied to the evidence of agents, were founded, before they resolved to depart from them. The law as affecting the employer and agent was clear. The employer, for every purpose, must necessarily be bound by the declarations and acts of his agent. This was a plain rule, arising out of the necessity of the case. Before, however, the acts of a supposed agent became binding upon an employer, it was absolutely essential that his relationship of agent should be clearly ascertained. To apply this rule to the present case:—commissioners had been employed to inquire into certain acts charged to have been committed by the individual accused at their lordships' bar, and it was clear, that whatever those commissioners might have done, or whatever they might have authorized others to do, must be received in evidence in the present inquiry. That was a proposition clearly understood.
736
The Earl of Donoughmore
was happy that the opinion of the learned Judges would be interposed on the present occasion; because, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the bias of his mind rather induced him to open the door as I wide as possible to the attainment of truth; a course which might, from the view which he now took of the arguments before the House, tend rather to obviate than to assist the general cause of justice. He could not help, on this occasion, animadverting upon the wide range of observation in which noble lords on his side of the House had indulged, upon a mere abstract question, as to whether certain evidence should or should not be received at their lordships' bar. He wanted to know what those observations had to do with this question, or upon what principle of justice it was, that they were called upon to listen to a long line of argument on the subject of a supposed conspiracy? Were they now trying a case of conspiracy? If grounds existed for charging the Milan commissioners, or his majesty's ministers, with conspiracy, surely the time for examining that charge had not yet arrived. They had heard a great deal of eloquence, sometimes a great deal of misrepresentation, both prose and verse, which he thought might have been spared; and they had heard a great deal of inflamma-
737
Earl Grosvenor
considered the present question of the greatest possible importance; and although he had not yet troubled their lordships on this subject, he was anxious shortly to state his reasons for thinking that this question ought not, at the present moment, to be submitted to the Judges. He wished to God that the whole question were brought to a decision! He considered the measure as objectionable and unconstitutional in every point of view, and therefore his mind was made up as to the vote he should ultimately give. With regard to the immediate point under the observation of the House, whatever might be the decision of the Judges, he thought that their lordships should not be bound by technical objections, and that they should unreservedly enter upon an examination of the conduct, not alone of Vimercati, but of every person who had been found acting in this mysterious case. It was said, that this was not the time to enter into an examination as to the character of this conspiracy; but he contended, that, of all others, this was the season when this subject should be fully investigated; for it was now that the conspiracy had begun to develope itself. This was its dawn, and the present was the only time forgetting at the truth. He by no means wished to disguise the difficulty which arose from the circumstance that Vimercati was not in this country to be produced. But whose fault was that? It was not a difficulty which ought to be allowed to operate as a gross hardship on the accused. The noble earl opposite had too much manliness, he was sure, to deny the agency of Vimercati; more particularly since Restelli's case had thrown doubts upon the manner in which the witnesses had been collected. All they knew now respecting Restelli was, that strong suspicions attached to his share of the business. That he had offered money was directly alleged; and that he might have
738
Lord Redesdale
observed, that it would be useless to address any arguments to the noble earl who had just sat down, that noble earl having declared, that he had made up his mind on the subject. The point on which their lordships were now called upon to decide was, whether a question should now be put to the witness, although it was of a nature not permitted by those rules which the wisdom and experience of ages had determined were essential to the sound and regular administration of justice? Why, in this particular case, those rules ought to be departed from, he was utterly at a loss to conceive. If those rules were not effective to the production of the truth, they ought to be abandoned every where; if they were so effective, they were universal in their character, and ought to be invariably maintained. For his part, he knew not how the honour and life of any individual could be safe, if those rules were departed from. Although his own opinion was that which he had already expressed, he was very desirous to have the assistance of the learned Judges, whose long legal habits and constant experience so eminently qualified them for aiding their lordships in the consideration of the question; that should he find they differed from him on any point of this description, he should be very careful indeed before he determined to act on his own opinion.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he would shortly trouble their lordships by stating the grounds upon which he thought this question ought to be submitted to the learned Judges. The House had been now between thirty and forty days en-
739
740
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he wished to offer a few words on the subject. It was not his intention to protract his remarks to any length, not because he did not consider the proposition under their lordships consideration of great importance, but because the merits of the case had been more forcibly stated than he could hope to state them, by other noble lords, and more especially in the comprehensive, able and constitutional speech of his noble and learned friend on the bench behind him. Far as he should be from considering himself bound by the opinion of the Judges on the question which it was proposed to submit to those learned persons, he did not rise to oppose that particular proposition, since it appeared that to obtain that opinion would be satisfactory to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, as well as to other noble lords. But in order that the answer to the question should be satisfactory to any body, it appeared to him to
741
742
*
*
743
*
Lord Redesdale
observed, that if the noble marquis would refer to the first part of the learned lord chief justice's remarks, he would find the matter fully explained.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he would read to their lordships the early part of the lord chief justice's observations. They were as follow:—"I agree with the other Judges in considering the two questions proposed to us by your lordships to be, with reference to the point on which our opinion has been asked, substantially one; and that question, as proposed by the House, contains these words—'The witness being re-examined, had 'stated what induced him to mention to 'C. D. what he had so told him;' by which I understand that the witness had fully explained his whole motive and inducement to inform C. D, that he was to be one of the witnesses; and so understanding the matter, and there being no ambiguity in the words, 'I am to be one 'of the witnesses,' I think there is no distinction to be made between the previous and subsequent parts of the conversation; and I think myself bound to answer your lordships question in the negative."—What he wished to point out to their lordships attention was this; that notwithstanding the opinion which had had been thus given by the learned Judges, they would find, that the following question had actually been afterwards put to the witness Sacchi: "Did any one of the Marietti's whom you are acquainted with in London, make any proposition to you touching the evidence you were to give in this cause?" What he contended for was, that the answer to this question brought
*
744
745
Lord King
apologised to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack for making the observation, but, he conceived that the words in which the question was framed, would still not exactly meet the case.
The Lord Chancellor
replied, that no apology was due from any noble lord for such an observation. On the contrary, it was conferring a great obligation on him. He was anxious to frame the question so, as to render the answer as satisfactory to their lordships, as, under all the circumstances of the case, could be expected.
Lord King
observed, that it had been contended there was no proof of Vimercati's agency. In contravention of this assertion, the noble lord read an extract from the Minutes of Evidence, by which it appeared that Vimercati had agreed to give ten livres a day to a witness in support of the bill. He should vote against putting the question to the Judges, let it assume whatever shape it might; but still he thought, that the part of the evidence which related to Vimercati's agency, should be referred to in the question.
746
1. "If in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, or any crime, evidence had been given upon the cross-examination of witnesses examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared A. B., not examined as a witness, had been employed by the party preferring the indictment as an agent to procure and examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment, and the party indicted should propose, in the course of the defence, to examine C. D. as a witness to prove that A. B. had offered a bribe to E. F. in order to induce him to give testimony touching the matter in the indictment, E. F. not being a witness examined in support of the indictment, or examined before it was so proposed to examine C. D., would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow C. D. to be examined for the purpose aforesaid, or could such witness, according to law, be so examined, if the counsel, employed in support of the prosecution, objected to such examination?
2. "If in the trial of an indictment for a capital offence, or other crime, evidence had been given upon the cross-examination of witnesses examined in chief in support thereof, from which it appeared that A. B., not examined as a witness, had been employed by the party preferring the indictment as an agent to procure and to examine evidence and witnesses in support of the indictment, and the party indicted should propose in the course of the defence to examine G. H. as a witness to prove, that A. B had offered him a bribe to induce him to bring to him papers belonging to the party indicted, G. H. not having been examined as a witness in support of the indictment, would the courts below, according to their usage and practice, allow G. H. to be examined for the purpose aforesaid, or could such witness, according to law, be so examined, if the counsel, employed in support of the prosecution, objected to such examination?"
747
The Earl of Carnarvon
rose. He said, he did not conceive that their lordships could be more unprofitably employed than in sitting in that place discussing technical questions; because it appeared to him, that the point of law which had been so much debated had no connexion whatever with the point of duty, on which they would ultimately be called to decide for themselves. Whether this alleged conspiracy was proved or was not proved, the real question for their lordships' decision must be, whether they would yield to the demand of ministers, first to give them the human sacrifice for which they thirsted, and, when they had immolated the victim, to proceed to inquire by what foul crimes, by what wicked artifices, that victim had been dragged to the altar? This was the most extraordinary proposition that a minister of the Crown had ever assumed, the right of submitting to their lordships; but still it was the true question now before them. Their lordships might amuse themselves by putting questions to the learned Judges, but it was impossible for them to get rid of the question which he had stated; and therefore, he thought they had better at once meet that question boldly and manfully. But if they thought proper to wait for a decision on this point of law, which, he repeated was wholly irrelevant to the point of duty, it would seem as if they were afraid of the great question. He would not apologise for this short appeal, which, to some, might appear to be a waste of time, because he was convinced that they could not waste their time worse than by pursuing the line of proceeding which they had adopted.
Lord Erskine
rose for the purpose of proposing, that another question should be referred to the learned Judges, with the view of ascertaining, whether evidence like that on which their lordships had been debating, and on the propriety of receiving which, no decision had yet taken place, might not, under particular circumstances, be legalized, and rendered admissible. Although the question put to the learned Judges might be by them decided in the affirmative, he would assume that a negative decision had taken place, and under that supposition, he would put the following question:
748
The Lord Chancellor
said, that though he did not see how this question bore on the proposition in dispute, yet the same principle which led him yesterday to state, that if any noble lord wished to have the opinion of the Judges, he should feel obliged to him for demanding it, and that he would look with deference to the opinion of those learned persons, whatever his own might chance to be, now led him to think that the question of his noble and learned friend ought to be put.
The Question was referred to the Judges, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, October 17, 1820.
The House met pursuant to adjournment.
COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS—PETITION FROM LIVERPOOL.]
General Gascoyne
, in presenting a petition from the inhabitants of Liverpool, begged leave to call the attention of the House for a few minutes to the statements which it contained. He was aware that one topic occupied almost exclusively the attention of parliament and the public; still, however, the state of the country required that the House should take the subject of this petition into early consideration. The increase of pauperism in the town of Liverpool, which the petitioners ascribed chiefly to the distressed state of their trade, was truly alarming. So great was the increase, that not more than 20,000 of the inhabitants of Liverpool were rated. The population of that town was somewhat above 100,000, say 110,000; out of that number he was instructed by the mayor, who had called the meeting at which the resolutions upon which this petition was founded were passed, to inform the House, that 20,000 only were rated, and of these 7,000 were incapable of paying the annual rates. The petitioners were aware that the House had taken the
749
Ordered to be printed.
MR. HATSELL.]—
The Speaker
said, he had to inform the House that John Hatsell, esq. late clerk of that House, died on Sunday morning and that his majesty would speedily appoint a clerk.
Lord Castlereagh
said, that it was a duty which the House owed to the memory of the individual, whose decease had just been communicated from the chair, to record upon their Journals the high sense which they entertained of his meritorious services.
Mr. Tierney
entirely concurred with the noble lord, that the House was bound to mark its respect to an individual who had so long and so faithfully discharged the duties of the situation which he filled in that House.
The Speaker
said, he would venture to suggest the propriety of a motion, which it was competent for any hon. gentleman to make if he should think fit. It was in the power of any member to move, that the vote of the year 1797, passed in acknowledgment of Mr. Hatsell's services, should be now read, and the repetition of that vote would then form a part of the proceedings of this day.
nem. con.
THE QUEEN—BILL OF PAINS AND
Lord Castlereagh
750
Mr. Tierney
said, that from some circumstances which had come to his knowledge, it was of great importance that the proceedings of this day, in the House of Lords, should be included in the motion.
Lord Castlereagh
thought it was sufficient, to move generally for a committee to inquire into, and report upon the present state of the proceedings.
Mr. Tierney
said, that any question not immediately connected with the innocence of her majesty, but connected with the manner in which the proceedings had originated, was a fit subject for the consideration of that House. He should move that it be an instruction to the committee to include the proceedings, of their lordships on this day.
The motion, so amended, was agreed to.
Lord John Russell
rose, to present a petition from the inhabitants of Plymouth against the bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty. It was signed by 2,000 inhabitants, the largest number of persons who had come forward upon a public question since the petitions against the property tax. The petitioners prayed that if the bill should ever come down to that House, the House would immediately throw it out. They were of opinion, that this proceeding, whether considered in a judicial or political point of view, was calculated to bring the administration of justice into contempt, and to endanger the security of the country. As this petition had been entrusted to him, he felt it his duty to present it. He had no hesitation in declaring that he entirely concurred in the sentiments of the petitioners; and that if ever the bill should come down from the other House, as he sincerely hoped it would not, he should be ready in his place to oppose it in every possible way. Without entering into the merits of the evidence which had been delivered before the House of Lords, he might be permitted to say, that the result of that evidence was not such as to make the people of England believe the Queen guilty. If the pretence for this bill were a tender regard for the morals of the country, be conceived that the whole ground of it taken away; if it had been entertained as a public measure, in order to prevent the effects of a bad example, it
751
Mr. Lockhart
hoped that the House would pardon him for a short time, if he ventured to deliver his sentiments on the subject of this petition. That opinion was in entire concurrence with the sentiments expressed in the petition itself. He could not but regard its prayer, as he looked upon the mode in which this bill of pains and penalties had been instituted, and the record of which was now before them on their Journals, as not only a most unconstitutional violation of the parliamentary laws of this kingdom, but as endangering the safety of the lower and middling ranks, by first of all striking, as was the practice in former ages, at the lives of those who were in the highest. When he called such a mode of instituting a proceeding, and such a proceeding itself, a violation of the laws, he meant to say a violation of the statute of Edward 3rd, which was the statute of treasons, and a violation of the express declaration of our Magna Charta itself, which had ordained in these words:—"Nemo capiatur aut imprisonetur, aut aliquo modo destruatur; nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terræ." Now, this very bill of pains and penalties—this unjustifiable species of encroachment—was that "aliquis modus destruendi," which our ancestors had so well pointed out and with so much providence endeavoured to avert—a method of procedure which was now in a civilized age revived—which was at this day brought forward, against the authority of all precedents, and the force of all laws. He meant to say, and he said it unhesitatingly, that by this measure, the statute of Edward 3rd was
752
753
ab initio,
754
755
"se l'on violast,"
756
Ordered to be printed.
MOTION RESPECTING THE LIBERATION OF FRANKLIN CHARGED WITH
Mr. Hume
said, he rose to call the attention of the House to a question of considerable importance, a question involving consequences more extensive than those who had not traced the progress of the mischief, as he had done, could easily believe, and calculated to bring before their view a series of proceedings, the manifest object and tendency of which was, to disturb the peace of the country. The motion with which he should conclude was, that sir Robert Baker, the chief magistrate of Bow-street office, should be called to the bar of that House to answer for his conduct, in permitting the escape of an individual charged with circulating a seditious hand-bill. He would prove, that the practice had been carried to a great extent, and that the mischievous consequences had spread further and been felt more severely, both in England and Scotland, than would on the first statement appear credible. The conspiracy, for a conspiracy he would call it, he would prove it to be such hereafter in the committee, as he had no doubt that the House would see the necessity of appointing one to investigate
757
l.
l.
758
759
l.
760
l.
761
"Arthur Scale, of No. 160, Tottenham-court-road, in the county of Middlesex, printer, on his oath saith, that in the latter end of June, or the beginning of July, 1818,a man of gentlemanly appearance, who was then a stranger, called at my office, and asked me if I would print some bills, saying, if I would undertake to do them, it would be very beneficial, as there would be a great deal to do in the same way, and he then produced the manuscript of a bill; I read the bill, and perceiving that it was of an inflammatory nature, I hesitated doing them, whereupon he said he would allow me a little time to make up my mind, and accordingly he went away, and returned in about two hours, when I still scrupled, and he said, I need not fear, for that I should be protected in all I did. I then asked his name and address; he answered, that was of no consequence, for I might rely,
762
"To the Non-Represented.—May that day
763
crim. con.
764
"Let us, in this mighty crisis, bear in mind, that the great are not our only foes. Those middle ranks who make us hew and draw; and dole their pittance to us according to their humour—these are our most grinding enemies. What is the constituent body but the tyrants of the non-represented? What are the ten thousand wretches who, in Westminster, voted against Mr. Hunt, but oppressors of their non-franchised fellow-citizens—content to crawl before the higher orders, that we may continue slaves to both. Alike then, and equal, be their common destiny. The brave, though starving outstanders of Manchester should be avenged in London. Shall non-represented Britons in such a cause, be scared by the fear of gibbets or bayonets? Be' our remonstrance to the Crown decorous, but let us, in one heroic day, convince mankind that the grievances of non-representation are now become insupportable. ONE OF THE NON-REPRESENTED.—September 7, 1818."
765
alias
alias
766
Lord Castlereagh
declared, that he was quite astonished at the motion with which the hon. member concluded, as it was so very incommensurate with the opening of his speech. But that motion itself was of a surprising character. For he believed it was the first time that an application was made to that House, in the first instance, to take cognizance of the irregularity of any magistrate, the usual way being to make such application to the Court of King's-Bench. But as to the opening of the hon. member's speech, he distinctly charged the existence of a conspiracy for the purpose of fabricating and circulating seditious and treasonable publications, of which he alleged that his majesty's ministers formed a part. What! that ministers should become a party to a confederacy for exciting discontent, for promoting sedition, for contriving the means of endangering the security of the government, and of the constitution of the country, merely with a view to defeat an endeavour to procure a service of plate for the Queen? The hon. member had often drawn upon the credulity of the country, but he himself could hardly calculate upon the acceptance of such a draft at sight as his statement of this evening presented. There was not surely such a lack of libels in the country as to render the assistance of government necessary to the manufacture of such articles. Mr. Carlile, Mr. Hone, and Mr. Wooler, were found, he believed, to produce quite enough of sedition, or of inflammatory and treasonable placards, to satisfy the amateurs of that species of composition, and to forward their object, without any aid from his majesty's government, which it was their object to overthrow. But, if ministers were parties to the conspiracy, which the hon. member alleged to exist, how clumsily must they have proceeded, according to his description. They, indeed, if the hon. member's information were correct, had selected an agent for the advancement of their end, who must necessarily have been brought into public view; for, as that hon. gentleman had stated, Franklin, who had absconded, was the confidential friend of ministers, with whom he dined on one day, while on the other he was found in a carriage with a multitude of seditious placards, accompa-
767
768
Mr. Hume
said, No, from September last.
Lord Castlereagh
maintained, that affidavits were produced by the hon. member from persons who stated that they had a knowledge of the proceedings of this alleged conspiracy since 1818, when the placard referring to sir Francis Burdett was promulgated during the Westminster election. Did the hon. gentleman then really mean, that persons who were so long in possession of the character and conduct of this plot, without making, until very lately, any disclosure upon the subject, were, entitled to the credit which he appeared to assume? The hon. member came forward with extra-judicial affidavits, which, if even full of falsehood, could not subject the deponents to any punishment; and yet, upon the faith which he claimed for such affidavits, he came down to that House to propose the institution of a parliamentary inquiry. If upon such grounds any proceeding was founded, it was scarcely possible to imagine into what awkward situations the House might be occasionally led. It must, indeed, suggest itself to any one acquainted with the laws of the country, that that House was not the proper place for such an inquiry as the hon. member desired to institute. Having said so much as to the folly and absurdity of the course which the hon. member proposed, with regard to a case already in a course of legal proceeding—
Mr. Hume
asked, where?
Lord Castlereagh
replied, that a warrant had been granted for the apprehension of Franklin, and, if justice should not appear to be duly administered, it would then be time enough to call upon that House to interfere. But, with respect to the case of Franklin, he would now state to the House an outline of what he understood to be the particulars of that case, and what remained, other gentlemen, from whom he obtained his information, would be ready to supply. It was only this day that he had been at all aware of the intention to bring the case before the House; and feeling it his duty to make every inquiry which the time afforded, he obtained all the information in his power upon the subject. But first he would assure the hon. member, that until
769
770
ad referendum,
771
772
Mr. Bennet
said, he knew not which was most to be admired, the lofty tone which the noble lord had maintained throughout his speech, or the lame and impotent conclusion, in which that speech had terminated. Surely, it might have been expected, that persons so anxious to prove their innocence before the House and the country would seize the first opportunity which presented itself for investigation. But the noble lord objected to examination even
in limine,;
773
774
in limine,
Mr. Clive
declared, that the Home-office, in which he had the honour to hold an appointment, had no knowledge of the case of Franklin until the Monday after Franklin's arrest. It was the custom of sir Robert Baker to attend at the Home-office every Monday for the purpose of making an official communication. Upon the Monday alluded to, some conversation took place with respect to Franklin, and the boy detected in circulating the seditious bills. But the first information of Franklin's non-appearance was brought to the office by Mr. Minshull, who made the application referred to by the noble secretary of state. Mr. Pearson came immediately after Mr. Minshull. The latter might, indeed, have almost met the former going down stairs. Mr. Pearson left with him two hand-bills, the one issued with respect to the trial of Brandreth, and the other upon the subject of the Queen's plate. He answered the applications of Mr. Minshull and Mr. Pearson doubtingly at first, but upon reference to lord Sidmouth, to whom he showed the papers left with him by Mr. Pearson, he was instructed by his lordship to say, that it would be inconsistent with official practice to comply with these applications, or to interfere with the police magistrates, who had ample powers to take proceedings for the apprehension of Franklin. Of this Franklin he had heard for the first time on the Monday after his arrest; and
775
Mr. Gurney
declared his intention to support the motion. The worst symptom of the times was, the total want of confidence in the government of the country, which existed in all classes of the community, and amongst persons of every variety of political opinion. This want of confidence was an enormous evil, and it was the duty of the House to sift to the bottom any transaction which came before them in so questionable a shape as the present one. But his principal reason for rising was, to remark shortly upon a part of the speech of the noble secretary of state.—The noble lord had distinctly avowed, that he had given Mr. Pearson letters to the English ambassador at Paris, to aid him in the apprehension of Mr. Franklin. Now, it must be remembered, the offence charged was, the distribution of seditious hand-bills; and if the governments of Europe were under agreement to play into each other's hands in this way—mutually giving up persons who might be obnoxious to accusation for political misdemeanors, it would go, under the present circumstances of the world, to the establishment of the most unqualified tyranny. Our Alien act had been loudly declaimed against; but the enactments of our Alien bill shrunk into nothing, as compared with the exercise of arbitrary power, which it appeared the noble lord bad claimed of the government of France.
Lord Castlereagh
rose to explain how the case stood as to the facts mentioned in the latter part of the hon. member's speech. The assistance which was occasionally rendered by one country to secure the persons who had fled from justice in another, was only given in consequence of mutual arrangements. This country had been applied to to make such arrangements; but there was not one of the powers which had made those applications, respecting the securing of murderers and forgers, to which it had not been told, that whatever assistance they might give us, we could not give reciprocal assistance, as it was repugnant to the spirit of our laws; for whatever notion existed that the Alien act had been indirectly applied to that purpose was quite erroneous; ail foreign powers had been informed, that
776
Mr. Gurney
said, his allusion was to the demand made for the giving up a person accused simply of seditious proceedings, and had no reference whatever either to murders, felonies, or other crimes.
Mr. Gipps
could not vote for the motion, but said, that for several months past he had seen with indignation the activity with which placards of the most inflammatory nature had been circulated, to excite the people to discontent. He thought that this could not have been carried on to such an extent if the Home-department had been sufficiently active, and had employed agents either to pull down the placards, or to bring the authors to punishment.
Mr. Bernal
wished to know whether the noble lord meant to let the matter rest in its present shape, and whether he would refuse that inquiry which was so necessary? Without imputing to the administration itself, a participation in the criminal matters which had been discovered, it was not too much to infer that there might be knaves and fools in the inferior departments of the government. Very grave facts had been stated, that had not been repudiated in any material respect. This fact especially remained unshaken, that notwithstanding the reasons stated by various gentlemen at the Home-office, steps were not taken to apprehend the offender, and that even as yet no reward had been offered, though in the case of the placard published at Glasgow, a reward of 500
l.
777
Sir John Sebright
said, that in this, as in all other cases, he was the friend of the fullest inquiry, but he did not see any practical end that would be answered by calling sir Robert Baker to the bar. As to any participation which the government of the country was supposed to have had in the distribution of these placards, he could not conceive for a moment that they would have been so absurd as to commit such an act of suicide. The thing was improbable on the face of it, and he gave full credit to the assertions of the noble lord, which he had never any reason to question. He was sorry to agree with Mr. Gurney, that the government of the country was excessively unpopular, and that was a reason for the fullest inquiry. But, what was equally important, he was sorry to believe, that in such a state of feeling as existed, the people would be satisfied with no government whatever. The ministers had given reason for discontent; but all possible means had been employed to foment it.
Mr. Tierney
said, he was very forcibly impressed by what had been said by an hon. gentleman as to the state of the public mind, which demanded a full inquiry into all proceedings of the nature of that which had been brought under their attention. The noble lord should bear in mind, that whatever he might say, whether the magistrates might be justified or not, whether the Home-department was in the right or not, a general impression prevailed in the country, that the government, in order to produce explosions, were accustomed to employ agents, who systematically urged the discontented to go greater lengths than they would otherwise go to. The fact, too, yet remained unexplained and unanswered, why a reward had not been offered. Here was a case in which a person had been distributing placards almost treasonable; he was apprehended, and taken to the Police-office, and then a different magistrate from the one who had caused him to be apprehended comes, and on what he considers the assurance of a respectable gentleman, discharges him. The man absconds—on the face of it this was an implication of guilt, and yet the government said, that there was on the face of this nothing which justified their interference! But what said the noble lord to this? Why, that it was all a dexterous plan of the radicals; and so because the noble lord was pleased to suppose that it might turn out to be a
778
779
Lord Castlereagh
, in explanation, denied having admitted, that the letters would be of no use. He had only stated, that foreign governments were not bound by any agreement to assist in the arrest of subjects of this country, except in the cases he had mentioned; but they had in many instances given that assistance, when they were not bound so to do. The case of the individual alluded to was only a misdemeanor, and they might if they pleased assist even in that.
Mr. Clive
observed, that it was not the practice of the Home-department to offer
780
Mr. Beckett
was anxious, in addition to the statement of his hon. friend, to mention, that in the course of his experience it was not the practice of government to offer rewards in such cases as the one alluded to. They usually offered rewards in cases of murder, burglary, and other cases of violence; and the reason was, that the party being likely to escape, the offer of a reward would tend to prevent the purposes of justice from being defeated; but it was only in cases where it was supposed that the ordinary methods would fail that such rewards were offered. But this application was made
instanter,
Mr. Brougham
said, he only wished to express his entire concurrence in the recommendation to his hon. friend to reconsider his motion, and to postpone his proceedings till the ordinary means of detection, and he might add, the ordinary means of defence had been resorted to; for though there might be a
prima facie
781
Mr. Beckett
believed he had been misunderstood in what he had said with respect to sir Robert Baker. He had stated, and he repeated the assertion, that from the knowledge he had of that gentleman, he believed him wholly incapable of acting from a corrupt motive. But if any fault was found with his conduct, the King's-bench was the place where that conduct might be inquired into. As to the offering of a reward, it was not customary to
782
Mr. C. Calvert
joined in the suggestion to the member for Aberdeen to withdraw his motion. As to Sir R. Baker, he was convinced that he was as incapable of stating a falsehood as any man in or out of those walls.
Sir R. Wilson
wished to know whether, in case of the apprehension of Fletcher, the law-officers would be directed to prosecute? If not, the expense would fall upon individuals, and there would be no more possibility of redress, than there was for the sufferers at Manchester.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he could not answer for a department of which he was not at the head; but he had no doubt there would be every anxiety shown to bring the author of those placards to punishment.
Lord John Russell
expressed his satisfaction, that notwithstanding the activity with which those seditious and inflammatory placards had been circulated within the last few years, and the great distress and privation of most of the lower ranks of people during that time, they had been productive of so very little effect, and that it should be a matter of consideration, that perhaps some of those unfortunate persons who were now suffering in prison for having been connected with illegal meetings, might have been instigated by some of those placards.
Mr. Hume
said, that though he still thought the motion which he had made was proper on the commencement of the inquiry, he should yield to the superior experience of others, and withdraw it. The noble lord had made a bold assertion when in defence of the placards he had said, that more seditious publications daily issued from the press of Wooler and Hone. If the noble lord was sincere, he had then passed the severest censure on the attorney-general, who had suffered them to go unnoticed. But he utterly denied that such was the fact, or that Mr. Hone or Mr. Wooler ever published anything like those placards. It was a piece of injustice, and only a trick of the noble
783
The motion was withdrawn.
THE QUEEN—BILL OF PAINS AND
The committee appointed to search the Lords' Journals, made its report, through Mr. Brogden. The report being read,
Lord Castlereagh
784
Sir G. Noel
said, he had before compared the House to a pack of hounds, who were whipped in or out by the noble lord as by the hunter. So, it seemed, he still resolved to treat them. He objected to so long an adjournment. They should continue to meet, to attend to the affairs of the nation at this critical period. He would move, as an amendment, that the House, on its rising, adjourn to to-morrow.
Mr. P. Moore
seconded the motion.
Mr. Tierney
said, he quite agreed with the hon. baronet, that the adjournment proposed was very much too long, but he was not prepared to support the amendment for an adjournment only till to-morrow. It was very extraordinary that now, after the trial had proceeded so far, a proposal should be made to them for a longer adjournment than was proposed at the very commencement. The noble lord knew better than he did, what was going on; but when he saw that there had been printed nearly 900 pages of evidence, he thought he was not hasty in concluding, that the proceedings were advancing towards their termination. Yet the noble lord had now proposed an adjournment longer than on any former occasion. He had thought, on a former occasion, that time should be allowed to see what the Lords would do, not understanding that he was to be at all bound by their proceedings. But the present motion made them quite subservient to the proceedings of the Lords. As a spectator of their proceedings, he imagined, that they would close in a week. If there was a possibility of that kind, why should they adjourn for so long a period? If the noble lord could inform the House that the bill of Pains and Penalties would never be heard of more in this place, then he was ready to adjourn, not merely to the 23rd of November, but to the 23rd of January. The noble lord had said, that if the bill were thrown out by the Peers, the order for the call need not be enforced; but surely, even in that event, there would remain many matters to be discussed of a most serious character. The noble lord must forgive him for saying, that in the public mind there existed a general indignation against ministers for the pass to which they had brought the country. It would be no adequate satisfaction to the nation to be told hereafter,
785
786
Lord Castlereagh
thanked the right hon. gentleman for the candour with which he had met the question. He would as fairly state the grounds upon which he differed with him. The calculation he had made was founded on nearly the same
data
787
Mr. Tierney
said, that even if the proceedings in the House of Lords were not to close sooner than three weeks, the utmost inconvenience that would occur to members, would be, in case the House now adjourned over for a fortnight, that they might possibly be detained in town for three or four days before any particular business would be entered on; but, on the other hand, if they were to adjourn to the 23rd of November, they would be exposed to much inconvenience, and her majesty to much injury. He could not comprehend any inconvenience, if the House were to adjourn to that day three weeks, to be then peremptorily called over; to adjourn for five weeks, would be to do that for which no fair reason had been assigned.
Sir W. De Crespigny
had no objection to the adjournment proposed, and trusted, that the reason for so long a separation was, a belief, on the part of ministers, that they would be enabled to get rid of a bill
in toto,
Mr. Creevey
trusted, that his right hon. friend would forgive him for saying that he had met this question in rather a strange way. He little expected that he would have talked of the private convenience of members, instead of meeting the subject with some expression, on the part of the House, of an opinion that it never would permit the bill of Pains and Penalties to enter its doors. It was a most strange consideration, and at the same time a most melancholy one, that the House of Commons, that House which ought to be the guardians of the laws and the defenders of public liberty, were the only body in the nation who appeared insensible to the alarming consequences of this bill. He would ask them to look to the petition presented that night from Plymouth. From the language of that petition, the parliament might learn what was due to the laws and constitution of England from the common inhabitants of the sea-port town of Plymouth. On a former occasion, it was stated in that House, that if the bill should be ever attempted to be brought before them, the best way of proceeding would have been, to move an address to
788
789
à posteriori;"
*
*
790
791
Mr. Tierney
said, that he felt as warmly as any man, the constitutional objections to bills of pains and penalties. The principal difference between him and his hon. friend who spoke last being, that he (Mr. T.) was able in some degree to restrain and keep down his feelings. Yet he knew nothing of the evidence as a member of parliament; but he could not approve of the summary mode in which it had been proposed to get rid of it by a prorogation of parliament. Had he been in the House when it was moved, he should have voted against it. He begged clearly to be understood that it was not because he did not express his opinion at present that he was to be supposed to feel less warmly than others upon this subject.
Mr. Scarlett
begged pardon of the House for rising at the present moment; but, after the call which had been made by his hon. friend, he deemed it incumbent upon every man to declare his unbiassed sentiments. He would not enter into a discussion upon the merits of the evidence; but he begged to state, that he, for one, would never, upon any public grounds yet promulgated, give his consent to this bill of Pains and Penalties. With respect to the measure before the House, it was so far connected with the proceedings in the House of Lords, as to entitle him to observe somewhat on those proceedings. They had before them a report, stating, that certain questions had been put to the learned Judges. Until he had heard that report read, he was altogether ignorant of its import. The import of those questions, if he understood them rightly, was, whether the House of Lords were entitled to inquire whether any undue and improper means had been employed to collect evidence against her majesty? He could only say, that if he had been of counsel for the prosecution against the meanest subject in the realm,
792
793
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, he felt as much impressed as any man with the impropriety of being drawn into any discussion upon this subject at this premature period; but he could not in silence hear one set of gentlemen arrogate to themselves all purity of principle, and deny it to those with whom they differed upon political topics. Let them pause, and see whether, in the case in which they were involved, there were any ground for all this reprobation so unsparingly heaped upon their course. What was the course of that proceeding? Reports of a most degrading nature respecting the princess of Wales [A laugh]. If gentlemen who opposed his views refused to listen to any thing at variance with their own preconceived opinions, then there was an end to all freedom, or, indeed, utility of debate. [Hear, hear!] Reports of a most degrading nature respecting the conduct of the princess of Wales had reached this country; and, putting out of view all the statements of Italian witnesses, it was said, that an English lady of high rank and character, had been obliged to withdraw herself out of the Queen's society in Italy. These statements called for inquiry, and the step taken was the natural and proper one. A commission—that much abused commission—was sent out in consequence. Steps
794
795
Mr. Calcraft
said, that he had meant to have complimented the hon. and learned gentleman, on the bold and manly course he had set out with taking, in defiance of popular feeling; but he found, in the progress of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech, that he must abandon this intention; for it seemed that, so far from having this boldness, he had happily and judiciously selected the favourable moment when he was to have the tide of popular feeling with him. For his own part, he must say, that, in the discharge of his public duty, he did not presume to know on which side of a question the tide of popular feeling ran. He always felt it to be his duty to take the course which his own judgment and sense of principle suggested, as becoming a representative of the people in parliament. But if he were to judge of the current of popular feeling on the question now in agitation, he should say that, so far from the tide being about to turn in favour of the opinion of the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, the universal feeling was decidedly hostile to the pending investigation, and more particularly at the present time; and that, so far from
796
797
798
799
800
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the subject actually before it, which was nothing more nor less than what was the proper period to which they should adjourn. He hoped he might be allowed to do justice to one of his colleagues who had been attacked by the hon. gentleman opposite; and he would appeal to the knowledge of every person, whether his noble and learned colleague had ever been swayed by any private or improper motive, and whether the most unimpeachable integrity had not regulated his conduct for a period of forty years. The question upon which they had now to decide was, whether it was consistent with their duty, and consistent with justice, that they should now take a short adjournment, or extend it to a period of five weeks. The hon. gentleman opposite had stated, that he did not apprehend that the proceedings would be closed in a shorter period than three weeks. It was expedient therefore to decide, whether it was better to adjourn to that period by which it was calculated the proceedings might be finished, or by extending the period of adjournment a little further, to make themselves almost certain, that when they next met they should meet with a reasonable probability of proceeding at once to the consideration of the subject. He apprehended that the interests of the public would be best consulted by adopting the proposition of his noble friend, and he felt certain, that if it should fall to their lot to take into consideration the question now occupying the other House of parliament, that they would do it with the same impartiality, and to the satisfaction of the public.
Mr. Calcraft
, in explanation, denied, that he had said a word in disparagement of the integrity of the noble and learned lord alluded to. As a Judge he believed him honest to the back-bone.
Lord Folkestone
said, he was one of those who did not wish to confine the question to the mere motion of adjournment, and keep the merits of the great question wholly out of sight. Such might be the policy of the noble lord, who had left that consideration wholly out of his view; indeed, it was to be judged of, from the manner in which the speech of the only honourable gentleman who ventured to open his mouth on the subject was received. He thanked his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey) for the tone he had as-
801
802
l
Mr. Wellesley Pole
said, he should not
803
804
Mr. Hobhouse
said:—Sir; my sentiments having been so frequently declared on the subject, I should not now trouble the House, were it not for an observation which fell from the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down. That gentleman seems to think it exceedingly absurd and inconsistent, that the hon. member below me should describe the lord chancellor as being a respectable judge, although he cannot approve of him as a statesman. This criticism was so much applauded by the gentlemen opposite, that I rise to remind them, that there is nothing anomalous whatever in such a character, and that to consider such an inconsistency as unnatural, shows a most lamentable ignorance of human nature. Many names might be mentioned of judges, who, in causes between private individuals, have observed a strict impartiality, but have been notoriously profli-
805
"In Israel's court ne'er sat an Abdethin
"With more discerning eyes or hands more clean.
806
The Amendment was withdrawn. The main question was then agreed to, and the House adjourned to the 23rd of November.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, October 18, 1820.
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 Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Lord Chief Justice
Abbott
Then, by leave of the House, the said Question was withdrawn; and the following Question was proposed for the consideration of the Judges:
"Supposing that, according to the rules of law, evidence of a conspiracy against a defendant for any indictable offence ought not to be admitted to convict or criminate him, unless as it may apply to himself or to an agent employed by him, may not general evidence, nevertheless, of the existence of the conspiracy charged upon the record, be received in the first instance, though it cannot affect such defendant unless brought home to him, or to an agent employed by him; and whether the same rule would apply if a defendant sought by such general evidence, in the first instance, to affect the prosecutor with a conspiracy to suborn witnesses for the destruction of his defence."
807
Lord Kenyon
stated, that Mr. Granville Sharpe, who had given evidence respecting the performance of the Moorish dance at Calcutta, wished to make a correction in a part of his evidence. He had, since he appeared at the bar, seen a letter or written document, which raised a doubt in his mind, as to whether the bishop of Calcutta was present at the exhibition of the dance. Mr. Sharpe was in attendance, and might now be called, if their lordships pleased to hear his explanation.
Then
Granville Sharps,
Lord Chancellor.
—It has been stated to the House that yon are desirous of making some correction in your evidence, with respect to a person or persons stated to have been present at a dance at Calcutta, is that so? It is.
Lord Kenyon.
—Are you correct in your recollection, and are you now of opinion that the bishop was not present? My memory is strongly impressed that the bishop was present, but I consider the written document more to be depended upon than my memory.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor
did not exactly see how far it was material that the bishop should appear present or not at the dance. The former question and answer might therefore, stand or be expunged, just as their lordships pleased. It was certainly very commendable in the witness if he had scruples respecting any part of his former testimony to come forward and state those scruples to the House.
Mr. Brougham
requested permission to put in two letters, one of his late majesty, arid the other of his present majesty, both of which he had stated in opening the Defence of her majesty, and requested that the earl of Liverpool might look at them to identify the hand-writing. The earl of Liverpool was accordingly sworn at the table by the lord chancellor; but Mr. Solicitor General expressing his willingness to admit the hand-writing of the said letters respectively,
808
Then Samuel Inman was called in, and having been sworn, produced a paper, and was examined as follows by their lordships:
Lord Chancellor.
—What paper have you got there? A certificate of the servitude of William Carrington in his majesty's navy.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords, the Judges conferred together for some time yesterday, upon the questions proposed to them by your lordships; and afterwards separated in order to, consider them apart, and met again early this morning, and again conferred together upon them. All of us then agreed in the answers to be given to the questions proposed to us, and I having read to my learned brothers the writing which I had prepared as containing my own sentiments and answer, it was found that they concurred therein; and I have their authority, with your lordships permission, to deliver what I had written (which your lordships will observe is in the singular number, being originally prepared as my own alone), as containing and expressing their sentiments also.
809
810
811
812
813
in limine,
814
Mr. Attorney General
stated, that having been present, by the permission of their lordships, during the delivery of the concurrent Opinion of the Judges by the lord chief justice, he trusted he should stand excused for submitting a few observations. Whilst engaged in the discharge of a duty which had been cast upon him, he had understood, at its outset, that, in the production and reception of evidence, their lordships had resolved to be guided by the rules of the courts below. He hoped that, in the discharge of a duty so anxious, and to him personally so painful, he should not be supposed to have acted improperly in having, the day before yesterday, interposed to offer an objection founded upon that resolution. The Opinion of the Judges, as he understood it, confirmed the validity of the objection as originally taken on a preceding day by his learned friend the Solicitor-general. If, however, their lordships thought that the inquiry to which the question so objected to was pointed, was an inquiry that ought to be pursued, he, for one, would no longer object to it, but rest persuaded that its result would be to the credit of the Milan commission. Even although a
primâ facie
The Lord Chancellor
inquired of the Queen's counsel whether they had any thing to offer in reply to the attorney-general.
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not undertake to state that he yet precisely understood the opinion of the learned Judges, or the effect of the observations just made by his learned friend.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, it would save trouble, if he now stated what his view was of the questions proposed to be put to the witness at the bar. He had always thought that if they departed from the rules respecting evidence which were adhered to in the courts below, they would have no marks to go by, and would be continually plunged in collateral discussions. But he certainly was most anxious
815
Earl Grey
observed, that it now appeared that the question on which so much time and deliberation had been consumed, was a question which ought to be put to the witness. He thought so too, but not for the reasons stated by the noble earl. If the Opinion of the Judges was clear, and ought to govern their proceedings implicitly, there was a rule laid down from which the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had himself frequently departed in the course of the present trial. The attorney-general now waved an objection which he had before most strenuously urged; but this was not of itself a reason sufficient to induce him to deviate from any rule which their lordships had previous established, from any principle of law, or that was essential to the administration of justice. Admitting the anxiety of the noble earl to bring this part of the inquiry to a conclusion—an anxiety which he was sorry had not displayed itself at an earlier period, because it might then have saved a great deal of useless discussion—he could not concur With him in the reasons which he now offered for going into it. Whatever was the practice of the courts below, he was now more than ever confirmed in his opinion, that the question ought to have been allowed to be put at once to the witness. The learned Judges did not appear to him to have given a very satisfactory explanation of the points referred to them. In their elaborate answer they gave no distinct statement, as to what was the prac-
816
The Lord Chancellor
said, he could not allow the question to pass without saying a few words. When he had put the question to the Judges, he had called their attention to it in such a manner, as to induce them to state, not only what the practice of the courts below was, but also what was the law on the subject. He had been of opinion, that the point was altogether new, and that, therefore, they would not be able to state any practice on the subject. What he had foretold had occurred: the case put was quite new to them, and they then felt it necessary to state what the law was on the subject; and (as they had no case in practice to refer to) he was sure they would have been wanting in respect to the House, if, in a case so novel, they had not stated the reasons on which their opinion of the law was founded. He would leave it to their lordships to say, whether he had departed from the rules he had laid down. But he would now affirm, that if he conceived the question to be contrary' to the rules of I law, no consent of the attorney-general
817
Lord Erskine
said, he certainly required no waver of the attorney-general to convince him that the evidence in question ought to be received. It ought to be received on the ground of its essential importance to the elucidation of truth. The answer of the learned Judges did not amount to a negative of his proposition: it admitted, that general evidence might be admissible, and it was difficult to say that one question might not produce evidence of a general nature as well as another. He contended, therefore, that he had the authority of the learned Judges for the proposition which he had at first maintained.
Then Bonfiglio Omati
was again called in, and further examined by Mr. Wilde as follows, through the Interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
818
819
Porta Orientale.
cameriera,
820
By a Lord.
—In what year? This year.
Mr. Wilde.
—Do you mean the year 1820? Yes, 1820.
Mr. Solicitor General.
821
822
823
"Non mi recordo?"
Non mi recordo.
Non mi recordo?
"Non mi sovvienne."
"Non so?"
824
Mr. Denman.
—For the sake of regularity' and for the sake of following the example of my learned friend, who often objected to similar questions, I object to the question, because it assumes that some light did break in upon the witness's mind.
825
Mr. Denman
submitted, that Mr. Solicitor-general could not examine to the contents of a written paper, stated by the witness to have been delivered to one of the agents in support of the bill.
826
827
828
829
830
Wilde.
831
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then Filippo Pomi
was again called in, and further examined by Mr. Tindal, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
Mr. Attorney General
submitted, whether, as the evidence stood, it was competent for the counsel against the bill to go into evidence of offers by Riganti, leaving it to the House to determine whether they thought it fit to proceed to hear such evidence.
Mr. Tindal.
—Upon that occasion, what did Riganti do? I went to buy salt, tobacco, or something; and he told me, for he knew I belonged to the Barona, "Pomi, have you ever seen those jokes (scherzi) between the princess and Pergami? now is the time to come forward, to gain something, and to become a man."
Attorney General.
832
Lords.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Were you yourself present at the balls at the Barona? Yes, I, told it the other day that I was present.
833
Then Antonio Mioni
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Williams, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
834
835
Mr. Attorney General
objected to this question. Although this was not a very regular inquiry, he presumed their lordships would require that it should be conducted with at least some degree of attention to the rules of evidence. The short objection which he should submit to their lordships was, that there was no evidence to show that Zancla was the agent of colonel Browne or Vimercati, or of any other person whatever; and consequently no conversation between Zancla and the witness could be evidence in this proceeding.
Mr. Williams
contended, that in point of law the evidence was admissible, even upon the narrowest ground; for the conversation between Zancla and the witness fell within the strict rule of a declaration accompanying an act, and was, consequently evidence to prove that act. But he did not mean to rest his argument upon that narrow ground. He would beg leave to put a case to their lordships. Suppose any such language as the following had been used by Zancla to the witness—"Here, you see, I have got 80 double golden Napoleons, and if you will only do as I have done, you shall receive as much, or more."
Mr. Solicitor General
said, he felt himself bound to interpose. It was surely most irregular that a counsel should suggest the answers which the witness was hereafter to give, by putting supposed cases.
Mr. Williams
wished to know how it was possible for him to make the House understand the nature of the conversation tendered in evidence, unless he was permitted to suppose such a case? He would suppose, then, that the conversation was in substance, a recommendation on the part of Zancla to the witness to go and make a deposition against the princess, and an assurance, that if he had any thing
836
Mr. Solicitor General
said, he must object to this mode of proceeding.
Mr. Williams
said, in reply, that the judges, in delivering their opinion that day, had said that on a trial for a conspiracy it was competent for the party to begin at whatever end of that conspiracy they thought proper. The usual practice, they said was, to begin with evidence of a general nature, showing the existence of the conspiracy, and then to adduce the details, bringing it home to individuals. His object now was, to show, that an opinion prevailed in Italy, that if witnesses came forward against the Queen, whether right or wrong was their testimony, they would be profitably rewarded. That was a material fact in the contemplation of the case. To establish the conspiracy it was therefore necessary to take the declarations of persons in detail. It would be impossible but by individual declarations to arrive at a general result. From the opinion of the Judges it was open to him to prove, that these prevalent impressions not only existed, but were acted upon by persons, inducing them to come forward as witnesses. Under these grounds, the examination which he was pursuing was evidence as far as it went. Besides, here it was not an abstract supposition. They had traced the witness and Zancla from Venice to Milan, there to the house of Vimercati, and thence again to colonel Browne's, where Zancla received the Napoleons. Here, then, were facts on which to append a case to which a great degree of materiality attached. The fact of a conspiracy could not be proved
per saltum,
Mr. Tindal
followed on the same side. He contended, that the question ought to be received in evidence; first, upon the ground of agency, and of the connexion between Vimercati and Zancla. The question of agency being established, he had a right to prove the acts and declarations, without being compelled to produce the agent himself. Wherever crime was imputed by the agency of third parties, from the showing of the acts of that party, the agency was inferred, Who ever heard in election cases, where the affirmative of bribery was to be established, of calling the agent to prove the act of bribery? It was quite sufficient to prove the character of agency; then to trace the acts, and
837
v.
Mr. Attorney General,
in reply, intreated the House to pause before it admitted this evidence, and see the importance of adhering to the ordinary rule of law, which was fatal to the admissibility of this question. They had now heard that they were to be called upon to admit as evidence in this cause, the prevalent reports which might have been circulated in Italy, because it was possible they might have made an impression on the minds of the witnesses. The House would now clearly see the extent to which the other side wished evidence to be received. No man
*
838
839
Mr. Brougham
said, that he had no right to reply—he only wished to explain.
Mr. Attorney General.
—I object, my lords, to this explanation.
Mr. Brougham.
—I only beg to say that we do not attack colonel Browne.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that three grounds had been urged for receiving this evidence:—1st. That testimony might be given of general impressions abroad; but this was the first time he had ever heard of such testimony being offered. Secondly, it was asserted, that agency had been established. He could not conceive on what ground the declarations of Zancla, when he came down stairs to the witness, could be admitted as the proof of what had passed up stairs. If this were to be proved, at all events it must be proved by Zancla himself, unless the rule that the best evidence that could be obtained should be adduced were completely reversed. The third point urged was, that this might in the result turn out to be evidence of a conspiracy; but here again he knew of no case where such had been allowed, and where it was not required that the party producing the evidence should connect it more immediately with the charge. For these reasons, he thought that the objection urged by the attorney-general ought to prevail.
Lord Erskine
said, he entertained considerable doubts upon the subject. He agreed that this question ought to be viewed as if the objection had been taken on an indictment; and he admitted also, that before such evidence could be entered upon, counsel ought to explain its object, and to state what he intended to attempt by the production of the witness. If the proof failed, no party would be affected by it. It was asked, if this were a connected chain of testimony? It might be so; but as yet the House only saw one of the links which hereafter might be connected, and closely connected with colonel Browne and Vimercati. The question here was, whether the declaration and explanation on the part of counsel had been sufficient to bring the case within the decision of the judges. The noble lord then referred to what had occurred on the trial
840
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that in his view this point required much consideration, though he was quite satisfied, that if his noble and learned friend looked again at the case to which he had referred, he would entertain more doubt than he had expressed. The effect of the cases of Hardy, Stone, and others, had been collected in Mr. Phillipps's work on Evidence, which did the learned author so much credit, where it was distinctly laid down, that the separate declarations of conspirators rendered the whole responsible; but then they must first be shown to be conspirators, and their declarations must be proved according to the regular forms of law. Hardy's trial had occurred so long ago, that until he refreshed his memory regarding it last night, he had forgotten all the circumstances, excepting that he made a tedious speech, which very nearly killed himself, and quite sickened his hearers. Having referred to it, however, he found that the position taken by his noble and learned friend was by no means borne out. If A. B. and C. D. were both proved to be parties to a con-
841
*
Lord Erskine
added, that what the learned lord had selected from Hardy's trial had no reference to the part to which he (lord E.) had alluded.
The Lord Chancellor
begged pardon for interposing; but it might perhaps be as well if his noble and learned friend would take an opportunity of again reading the arguments in that case.
Lord Erskine
replied, that he remembered all the main features of the case as well as if they had occurred yesterday. The question was, whether what was now offered to be proved might not hereafter be shown to be a link in a chain of evidence, showing that a conspiracy had existed to suborn witnesses against the Queen. In Hardy's trial, lord chief justice Eyre had allowed the attorney-general to bring forward evidence of particular facts, on the faith that they would afterwards be combined and united into a series. He (lord E.) did not mean to offer a decided opinion upon this point, but he thought the same liberty ought now to be allowed to the counsel for the Queen.
The Lord Chancellor
had no objection to the opinion of the Judges being taken on the subject, and lord Erskine expressed his assent.
Mr. Brougham
said, that the House might remember that he was not allowed to open the nature of the evidence upon this point.
Lord Erskine
observed, that counsel ought not only to be permitted to open it, but were required to open it.
*
842
The Lord Chancellor,
after exchanging a few words with the judges who sat near him, said, that though it might not be regular, he was authorized to say that the judges entertained no doubt that the evidence ought not to be received.
Lord Redesdale
expressed his concurrence.
Earl Grey
felt disposed to agree in the opinion given by the lord chancellor, and upon the three grounds that he had stated. General reports, he thought, ought not to be proved, and the agency of Zancla was not sufficiently established. As to the third point, whether it was proof of a general conspiracy, he felt bound to admit that Zancla was in no way shown to be connected with col. Browne, nor could evidence of his declaration be admitted. If Zancla were not connected, it was impossible that the House should hear from a third person what Zancla had told him in order to affect colonel Browne. Such being his opinion, he did not think any reference to the Judges necessary.
Mr. Brougham.
—Will your lordships allow me to state—
The Lord Chancellor.
—The House, I dare say, will have no objection to allow you to state what you wish to-morrow, but it is now four o'clock.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, October 19, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to de-"prive Her Majesty, Caroline Amelia "Elizabeth, &c.," and for hearing Counsel for and against the same,
Counsel were accordingly called in.
The Lord Chancellor
desired Mr. Brougham to state those observations to the House which he was desirous to submit to their lordships at their rising yesterday.
Mr. Brougham
humbly begged, that his lordship would be kind enough to let him know in what situation he stood, and whether he was to understand their lordships as having settled the point at issue, yesterday.
The Lord Chancellor
desired Mr. Brougham to consider himself as being
843
Mr. Brougham
said, that he understood the sense of the House had been sufficiently marked upon the proposition under debate yesterday. He was, therefore, unwilling to press upon the House any arguments upon a topic which he considered, in point of fact, already decided. But what he had now to open was a different proposition from that yesterday taken up by their lordships.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that before they could enter into a new proposition, they must decide upon that yet before them, which the learned counsel was wrong in assuming had been already decided. He would now put the question.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had not the slightest desire to call in question the decision of their lordships, but he must beg leave to observe, that, the question which had been put was not at all urged by his learned friend upon the grounds on which it was taken up in debate by the House, but upon very different ones, to which their lordships, acting upon the opinion pronounced by the learned Judges yesterday, must, without hesitation, be thought to accede. What he understood they had now decided was this, that he could not ask the witness Mioni, to tell the House what Zancla told him had passed between him and colonel Browne; that in short, no declaration of Browne could be given here in evidence, as related through another by Mioni, unless Zancla, with whom it passed, were himself produced to state it. This was, in fact, a question, which his learned friends, Mr. Williams or Mr. Tindal, had never for a moment raised. Neither of them, in putting the question to the witness, contended that it was for the purpose of proving what colonel Browne said to Zancla. That was the way in which their lordships put it, not the way in which it was meant to be put by his learned friends. The way, in fact, in which he wished to be understood as putting this
844
The Attorney General
submitted, that the course now about to be pursued was that of re-opening the question already decided by their lordships. This mode of proof was yesterday, in fact, argued from beginning to end. His learned friend had better state the question which it was his intention to propose, before he proceeded to argue upon it.
Mr. Brougham
again denied that the question had been argued yesterday. His learned friend, Mr. Williams, had not been heard upon it, and therefore he was entitled to address their lordships this day. The question he meant to submit was not the particular act of colonel Browne, but the general proof that there existed a conspiracy.' What he wanted to argue was the general question, and his learned friends, with the slipperiness of their nature, wanted to press him into their service, by saying that he was contending for a particular point of evidence, which he was not.
The Attorney General
repeated, that his learned friend was evidently labouring to re-open a point already decided. The question yesterday put to the witness, their lordships had now negatived, and therefore all argument upon its admissibility was now superfluous. If his learned friend, as he indicated, meant to raise a new argument, it must of course be upon a new question. Let him commence by stating the question he meant to put; that was the regular course of proceeding. It was never before heard of in a court of justice, that a counsel when contending that any particular question should be put, should, instead of setting out with stating his question, commence by opening with an argument upon it. If his question referred to Zancla, instead of to colonel Browne, why not simply state what his question was?
The Solicitor General
saw no ground for disputing the decision which had been, come to on the question. His learned friend had therefore no right to suppose that the case was not decided yesterday. As to the conduct of himself and his colleagues in support of the bill, it had not
845
The Lord Chancellor
wished the counsel for the defence now to state what course they proposed to take. He observed, that the course proposed to be pursued by her majesty's attorney-general was irregular. It was for the learned gentleman to state what the question was that he was desirous to put. If the attorney and solicitor-general should object to that question, the learned gentleman would then of course be heard in reply.
Mr. Williams
hoped their lordships would allow him to say a few words. The whole of the unnecessary discussion of yesterday, about a case which had never been proposed or imagined by her majesty's counsel, arose from his being interrupted in stating what it was they meant to prove as to Zancla. He trusted their lordships would not leave the door open to a second misunderstanding and delay, but allow his learned friend to complete that opening statement which he (Mr. W.) had been prevented, improperly prevented, from making yesterday. He had not the slightest disposition to violate any rule which their lordships might think proper to lay down; but he repeated that he had been unduly prevented yesterday from stating what it was that he wished to elicit from the witness, and with which the argument of the learned gentlemen on the other side had nothing whatever to do.
Earl Grey
considered the question decided yesterday to be different from that now proposed. The learned counsel had stated, that he had been interrupted in his examination by the attorney-general before it was known with what view the question was put. Their lordships were now given to understand by the learned
846
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that it would appear to him a very anomalous course of proceeding, if counsel on either side were, after opening a case, allowed to go into new matter. The learned counsel for the defence had opened no case which, in his opinion authorized the course now proposed. If their lordships were to proceed in trying the case, they must refer to the original opening, and under that opening the witnesses were to be called. When any question arose which was objected to by the other side, it was for their lordships to determine whether it should be put; but he could not conceive that it would be right to open a separate case for the introduction of new questions. As to the opinion given yesterday by the Judges he must certainly admit that those learned persons stated that, in certain cases, questions relating to a conspiracy might be gone into, but they also stated that this was only to be done when conspiracy was opened as part of the defence. Now, was conspiracy opened in the present instance as part of the defence? As far as his recollection served him it was not. As nearly as he could remember, the words used by her majesty's counsel in his opening were, "I do not charge conspiracy; but if there were conspirators, their acts would have been similar to those which have taken place." In his opinion, therefore, the question could not be treated by their lordships as if the case of conspiracy had been comprehended in the opening.
Lord Erskine
was ready to admit, that the question of getting from Mioni, what had fallen from colonel Browne in his conversation with Zancla, was very properly overruled; but the case now offered was a new case, namely, that of proving Zancla to be an agent in the conspiracy. This they had a right to do, either by beginning with the general evidence, and fixing the acts upon the individual, or by first proving the individual agency. Their lordships were to suppose a case of indictment for conspiracy, and then they
847
The Earl of Lauderdale
admitted, that it was competent for the counsel for the defence to put any question; and that the question of yesterday stood on a different ground from the present; but he could not see the possibility of going forward with this case, if counsel, before they put questions, were to be allowed to enter into a long argument on the course they proposed to pursue to be replied to by the counsel opposed to them, and then to reply to the objections by which they were met. He thought some rule ought to be laid down to guard against this, to prevent a debate being raised before a question had been put.
The Earl of Darnley
felt it to be his duty to object to the doctrine laid down
848
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that no man who acted as a judge could expect to be treated with respect, unless he showed respect to others. He therefore thought it right to state, that having found he had misunderstood the object of Mr. Williams, he was sorry that he had interrupted him. The communication which he had made, as he understood, in conformity with their lordships' wishes, to the counsel for the defence, that the question which they had asked could not be put in the present stage of the proceedings, would not preclude them from having recourse to a similar inquiry, nor even from putting that very question, at a future period. It had been decided by their lordships, that evidence of the proceedings of the Milan commission might be received at the present stage of the proceedings. He wished it should be remembered that the humble individual who had then the honour to address their lordships, did not concur in the view which had been taken of this subject. It was painful to him to differ from their lordships, but feeling that though painful, it was his duty,
849
850
The Counsel were again called in.
Mr. Brougham
—May my learned friend, Mr. Williams, now proceed to state his view of the subject?
The Lord Chancellor
said, that either of the learned counsel might address the House.
Mr. Williams
said, he was yesterday about to examine the witness as to the purport of the declarations of Zancla himself. This was his object; and, inasmuch as it was impossible for him to do that without putting the preliminary question respecting what Zancla had said, he had put that question which had been objected to, and successfully objected to, by the attorney-general. He was not then allowed to open what he intended to prove; and it was supposed, that he was about to inquire into what Zancla had said respecting colonel Browne—a thing which had never once entered into his dreams. What he proposed to prove was this—that Zancla had told the witness that if he would depose to any thing against the princess of Wales his fortune would be made. To this the witness replied, "But how can I do that when I have never seen her?" Zancla would then be shown to have said, "Oh! as to that, I can take you to the Villa d'Este and the lake of Como—I can point out a spot where you can swear that you saw her royal highness and Bergami embracing, and that will be sufficient." The witness would then state what had been done in consequence; but that which he would prove was all between himself and Zancla, and had nothing to do with colonel Browne.
The Lord Chancellor.
—State the question in the terms in which you mean to propose it.
Mr. Williams
said, he could not put the whole of his intended examination in one question. He should ask the witness the question he put yesterday, following it up by what he conceived necessary in explanation.
The Lord Chancellor
desired Mr. Williams to state what that question was.
Mr. Gurney,
at the request of Mr. Williams, read several questions and answers immediately preceding the objection taken yesterday: the last question with
851
The question was about to be put to the witness, when,
The Attorney General
said, he again objected to that question; and he thought the answer his learned friend had given to his objection that morning did not carry his case at all farther than it had proceeded on the previous night. His learned friend had said, that his course of examination would not open the conversation of Zancla and the witness with respect to colonel Browne. But their lordships must recollect his learned friend to have distinctly stated, that he would be able to bring home to colonel Browne the acts of another person. He, however, had a right to contend, that the whole of those acts, allowing them to have taken place, must be attributed to Zancla, without any connexion with the Milan commission. But his learned friend wished to show, from the declarations of Zancla, that he was employed by the Milan commission as an agent to suborn witnesses. Such evidence, he would maintain, could not be received in any court. It never was known, that an absolute agency was proved by evidence of the declaration of the agent; the agent himself must be called. The learned gentleman stated his great objection to be, that the declaration of Zancla, stated by a third person, even on the showing of his learned friend, could not be received. He himself must be called; or it must be shown whether he was authorized to do such acts as those that had been referred to; because it would be most unjust to make a principal accountable for acts which he had never given his agent liberty to perform. If their lordships looked at the way in which it was argued yesterday—most laboriously and ingeniously—by his learned friend, Mr. Tyndal, they would find, notwithstanding all the efforts that had been made to prove the contrary, that the question still remained the same, and that their lordships were, in fact, only considering the judgment at which they and the learned Judges had arrived yesterday.
The Solicitor General
said, the manner in which he understood his learned friend, Mr. Williams, to attempt to prove, that the present must be considered admissible evidence in this case, was, first, by showing that a conspiracy had existed to
852
853
Mr. Williams
was extremely anxious that this question should now be rightly understood, because it was very clear that yesterday it was wholly misunderstood. The attorney-general had, on that occa-
854
855
856
Mr. Brougham
said, he ought to apologize to their lordships for addressing them, after the clear, and, in his humble opinion, the conclusive argument of his learned friend. Their lordships now understood exactly what he and his learned friends did not mean; namely, that they did not mean to give evidence with respect to the conduct of colonel Browne. Nay, that they did not intend, at present, to tender evidence with a view to fix colonel Browne, or the Milan commission, at all. That was not the object of the present inquiry. He and his learned friends had been engaged with that commission during some portion of these proceedings, and perhaps they would recur to it again. But did it follow, because he was not going to fix colonel Browne, and the whole of his coadjutors at Milan, with this conspiracy, that he was therefore to be prevented from giving evidence with respect to other conspirators? If he could show that there was another man, although that individual had never before been named, who had been perpetrating acts, illegal acts—their lordships might call them what they pleased—at Milan, who had been thwarting her majesty's defence, impeding the
857
858
859
non constat
860
The Attorney General
said, in reply, that whatever misunderstanding might have existed yesterday, his learned friends could not complain that they had not now argued on every view which they could take of their proposition. But if he had misunderstood his learned friends yesterday, or if their lordships had misapprehended their application, why had they not interrupted him? He denied that there had been any such misunderstanding on his part, or any misapprehension on the part of their lordships. He called back to their lordships recollection, that his learned friend, Mr. Williams, had yesterday contended, that rumours, reports, and even opinions, ought to be received in evidence, and that in that stage of the proceeding, Zancla's evidence was therefore admissible. His learned friend, Mr. Brougham, had now given up Mr. Williams's argument, and for the last half-hour had been contending for the admissibility of this evidence on other principles. Their lordships were to abandon the rules on which they had hitherto proceeded, according to the declamation and address of his learned friend
861
862
863
The Counsel were ordered to withdraw.
The Earl of Donoughmore
thought, that such evidence as that which had been offered could not possibly be received in any court of justice, unless that court were ready at the same time, to open the door to every species of testimony, whether connected or not with the subject of judicial inquiry. The counsel would then only have to say, "the public feel that there is a conspiracy, and we hope your lordships will be of the same opinion. We are going to examine a witness, and the questions we are about to put to him must be proper questions, because we say that they will prove a conspiracy." What, he would ask, had their lordships to do with hearing the acts of Zancla through the mouth of a third person? Why should not Zancla himself be produced, instead of being brought into court through the mouth of a witness? If such evidence were admitted, how could their lordships shut the door against an inquiry into the acts of any man at Milan, who might or might not be connected with the' agents on the part of the prosecution? Their lordships had heard a great deal on the subject of a conspiracy. He was as willing as any man to admit, that their lordships had a most important duty to perform, when they came to weigh the testimony of some of the witnesses, because, undoubtedly, some of them had been proved to be of such a description, as called upon their lordships to look at their testimony with the greatest suspicion. It certainly appeared, in proof, that there had been something improper in the conduct of the persons engaged in collecting evidence, and it was the duty of noble lords to weigh, with the most scrupulous attention, a mass of evidence, in which any suspicious testimony was to be found. But, were the learned counsel at the bar prepared to say, that their lordships ought to reject the whole of the evidence, because a part of it was not worthy of credit? Their lordships, acting in their judicial capacity, could not come to any such conclusion. It was a most absurd proposition, that their lordships ought to reject a whole mass "of evidence, because some part of it did not appear to have any foundation in truth, and because some of the agents might be proved to have exceeded the line of duty which they ought to have observed. He would not say whether that was his opinion or
864
Lord Erskine
could not agree with his noble friend, that no evidence could be given of a conspiracy in this case. The contrary had been decided by their lordships, and the learned Judges had given an opinion upon the admissibility of general evidence to prove a conspiracy. Neither could he agree too with the learned counsel, that the existence of a conspiracy must first be proved, when the very object of the evidence offered was to prove that existence. If they objected to the evidence before the conspiracy was proved it would be impossible ever to prove a conspiracy. But the difficulty he felt was this:—Zancla was not a witness; he was not proved to be an agent; there was no act of his connected with the evidence in support of the bill. Zancla was not in any view sufficiently connected with the case, to admit evidence of his sayings and acts.
The Lord Chancellor
considered, that if this question was allowed to be put, it would form a perfect novelty in the proceedings of that House—whether the present were regarded as a judicial proceeding purely, or as a legislatively judicial proceeding. No agency was established here, but it was alleged that a conspiracy existed. Now, if they were to inquire of persons from Italy whether
865
Earl Grey
said, he understood it to have been already decided, that evidence of a conspiracy to suborn witnesses might be given, and that the only question before the House was, whether the evidence now proposed to be given was legal? He confessed that his opinion concurred with those which had already been delivered, and that, under all the circumstances; he thought the evidence offered at the bar could not be heard. In concurring generally with the opinion of the noble and learned lord, he could not, however, agree
866
ex vi termini,
867
Then Antonio Mioni
was again called in, and asked,
Mr. Williams.
—You stated yesterday that you went with Zancla from Venice to Milan? I did.
centesimo
Mr. Williams.
—Did you see him transact any business of any kind, except going to the house in the Porta Orientale and the street Ruga Bella; did you see him do any other business but that? He went also to look after a broker, or under manager of a theatre (
sensale
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that if the late decision was understood to apply to this, he would not press the question.
Mr. Brougham.
—Am I, then, to understand
868
The Lord Chancellor
said, it would be infinitely too dangerous for the House to give an answer to that question; because the House might see a material difference in the circumstances, which appeared to be similar to the learned counsel. The House could only decide upon each case as it arose.
Mr. Brougham.
—We can tender no other kind of evidence which can bring the case of conspiracy nearer to the Milan commission, than that which your lordships have been pleased to reject. Restelli has been sent out of the country; we have not Riganti to produce; and Zancla, for any thing we know, may be in the green-bag. There is no process of this Court by which we can compel the attendance of these persons. All that we can do we are ready to do; but your lordships seem to say, that all we can do is of no avail. I understand your lordships to say, that the proving such acts on the part of Zancla, and other persons in the situation of Zancla, as we are able to prove, that the calling upon colonel Browne, the bringing out of money from his house, and showing that money, as a bribe received to give evidence against her majesty, are circumstances not sufficient to connect the bribery with the agents of the Milan commission. If so, I can only say, that you thus cut off the clue of our case. We can, situated as we are—Restelli being withdrawn from us, and Riganti beyond our reach, produce no stronger evidence than that which we have tendered, and your lordships have thought proper to reject. If such is the decision of your lordships, then we need not carry farther the line of evidence upon which we have entered.
The Lord Chancellor
said, the only observation which he felt himself at liberty to make, without the authority of the House, was, that the question of calling other witnesses must be left entirely to the discretion of the Counsel, and he was sure it could not be left to better discretion.
The Witness was again called in, and examined by the
Lords.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—When you saw the Napoleons in Zancla's hand, were they loose, or in a bag, or in paper? He had a hand thus full, and he has a large hand.
Mr. Brougham
desired the interpreter to stop. That answer was not evidence.
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought they ought to hear the whole of the answer before it was objected to.
Mr. Brougham
said, it had been the uniform practice to object to an answer when it
869
The Lord Chancellor.
—You are right, Mr. Brougham.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, the answer of the witness was no answer to his question.
The Lord Chancellor
remarked, that that was a different thing altogether, and the question might be repeated.
Earl of Carnarvon.
—Do you know whether Zancla was ever in the princess's service? I do not know.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then Domenico Salvadore
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Brougham as follows, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto:
The Attorney General
objected to this question, upon the ground that the declaration of Sacchi, given by another person, was not admissible under such circumstances, Sacchi not having been proved to be an agent. If his learned friend intended to contradict Sacchi by the evidence of this witness, it would be the most proper method to point out that part of Sacchi's evidence which he meant to disprove.
Mr. Denman
said, that his learned friend's objection seemed to be, that he bad put a question to the witness as to what Sacchi had said to him, without previously putting questions to Sacchi himself, after which a contradiction might be given. That was not his object. His object was, to show, that Sacchi, who acted for the Milan commission in the procuring of witnesses, made application to the individual who had been now called
870
*
*
Mr. Park
said, that his learned friend on the other side had not the slightest grounds for putting a question of this sort Calling their lordships' recollection to the opinion of the lord chief-justice, as delivered yesterday, he apprehended it was quite clear, that the evidence proposed was not sufficient to establish that agency which was necessary to enable his learned friend to put this question. Now, he apprehended that the question submitted to the Judges, embraced evidence of much greater authority than that which existed in the present case; for here there was not the slightest proof of agency to collect witnesses generally, but merely the fact of Sacchi's having been employed by the Milan commission to bring Demont from Switzerland to Milan. He thought,
*
871
Mr. Denman
submitted, with great deference to their lordships that the course he proposed to adopt was not at all inconsistent with the opinion which had been given by the learned judges. He referred to a particular proceeding, and to particular passages of the evidence, as that by which the character of Sacchi was affected; but he was quite sure, that their lordships would not be blind to all that had been proved, in the course of the evidence adduced at their lordships' bar, with regard to the characters and acts of those employed by the Milan commission. He might be permitted, indeed, to say, that it would be worse than blindness, and totally inadequate for any purposes of the detection of a conspiracy, if they did not connect the whole of what was proved against Sacchi with those passages of the evidence to which he had adverted. When he talked of a Milan commission, their lordships must be sensible that he was no talking of an abstract idea, but of a commission which was known actually to exist. It was not by looking at what his learned friend (Mr. Parke) had called the ragged evidence affecting Sacchi, that that existence was to be traced, or its acts to be proved; but they were not to forget the applications to witnesses which had been made through Vimercati and Riganti—and they were then to connect all that was now charged to have so been done with the result of the evidence which their lordships had already heard. And then, as for the connexion of Sacchi with the Milan commission itself, if their lordships looked at his journey' to Scharnitz, at which place one of the circumstances charged against the Queen was alleged to have taken place, he thought it would be quite clear, that it was connected with what transpired yesterday, in the course of evidence, relative to Riganti. Taking, then, the whole of the evidence together, and referring to the acts of Sacchi, and the result of his cross-examination, he did not apprehend that there could be the slightest possible doubt, either that an absolute proof of agency were made out,
872
The Lord Chancellor
asked the counsel for her majesty, whether the whole of the evidence upon which they relied to prove Sacchi an agent, was contained in pages
873
Mr. Denman
referred to pages 344, 371 and 372 of the printed Minutes, as proof of the agency of Sacchi.
Mr. Parke
observed, that his learned friend had dealt somewhat in generals with respect to Sacchi; but when he was asked for the proof and illustration of his remarks, as they were to be derive'd from the evidence, they appeared to be confined to the facts of Sacchi's having gone to Switzerland for Demont, and to Scharnitz, for what purpose did not appear; and therefore he apprehended that, the question, being without better foundation, it was impossible to admit it. How was it possible for their lordships to allow that any act done by Sacchi in the capacity of a mere courier, should be made a ground for causing other questions to be put to him upon a re-examination?
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he would first, call the attention of the House to the evidence on the Minutes, as far as it affected the agency of Sacchi. It was to be found in pages 344 and 372, and 448 and 419, in his own testimony and in that of Demont. His own evidence was to this effect:—
874
*
875
Lord Erskine
said, the question was, whether the evidence offered would not go to affect the credit of Sacchi? He was quite sure of this, that when he was in the habit of practising as an advocate, if it could have been shown that a witness who had stated any thing against his client, had been himself endeavouring to beat up for false testimony, he would have offered evidence on that subject, and that evidence would have been accepted. The proper course would be, first to prove the corrupt act, and then to allow the other side to bring their witnesses to contradict it.
Earl Grey
said, that though, for the sake of avoiding interminable investigation, he had felt himself compelled, however reluctantly, to reject the evidence of acts done by persons in no way connected with the bill or its originators; yet in this case there was, if not strictly an agency, such a degree of connexion between Sacchi and the Milan commission, as made it very desirable to see what his conduct had been in their employment, and whether he had endeavoured to obtain corrupt evidence. There was, in his opinion, such a degree of agency as rendered the evidence admissible. But the
876
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he certainly should not object to the hearing of this evidence, but the only question was, whether they should hear it before or after Sacchi was called back? He did not think the evidence could be admitted on the ground first stated; namely, the agency of Sacchi. If Sacchi had been sent to Lausanne generally for witnesses, what he had said to persons to induce them to become witnesses, was good evidence; but it only appeared, that he was sent to fetch Demont, and it was too much to infer from thence a general agency. The case of Riganti was different; for he was sent to various places and to various individuals. As evidence affecting the credit of Sacchi, however, he thought it might be received, but Sacchishould be, he thought, previously called back.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it seemed to be the general opinion of the House, that he was to be called to affect the credit of Sacchi.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, it was very essential that it should be known on what ground the proceeding rested. It might be that the witness was called to affect the credit of Sacchi, or it might be something else, but it was essential they should know it.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it seemed to be the opinion of the House that the question should be put; but he begged it to be remembered, that his individual opinion was, that the agency
877
Lord Erskine
said, he could not have a clearer opinion on any point in the administration of justice than he had on this, that if a witness had endeavoured to corrupt any other witnesses, evidence might be admitted to prove that fact. When evidence had been heard on that point, they might call Sacchi to contradict it; and he did not pretend to say which evidence would be best; but he was clear that the regular course was, first to hear evidence in affirmation of the corruption before Sacchi was called to contradict it.
Lord Redesdale
said, it appeared to him, that the evidence was to be received, not to contradict any thing Sacchi had said, but to show that his conduct was corrupt, from which the inference would be to impute corrupt motives to him in giving his evidence. He conceived, that the counsel should be informed, that they were to offer evidence, not to contradict Sacchi, but to impugn, if they could, his credit, by showing the corrupt motives under which he has acted.
Lord Holland
wished to see some motion proposed in distinct terms.
Lord Grenville
thought the best way would be to call on the counsel to state the grounds on which they urged the admission of the evidence, or the objections which they made to it. The House would then have distinctly before them the grounds on which they have acted.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it might be well that he should signify to the counsel that the House had heard enough as to the imputed agency of Sacchi, but were willing to hear arguments on any other grounds.
The Attorney General
objected to the evidence, and to the question arising out of the argument upon it. The objec-
878
Mr. Parke
maintained, that the ground of his learned friend's objection to the course of examination proposed by his learned friends on the other side was fully sustained by a passage which he should read from the high authority of Phillips in his "Law of Evidence." In page 299 of the last edition, it was laid down, that "the party against whom a witness is called, may disprove the facts stated by him, or may examine other witnesses as to their general character; but they will not be allowed to speak of particular parts of his conduct; for though every man is supposed to be capable of supporting the one, it is not likely that he should be prepared to answer the other without notice, and even if he should happen to be prepared to defend himself, such evidence might generally afford a very slight and imperfect test of his credibility. The regular mode is, to inquire, whether they have the means of knowing the former witness's general character, and whether from such knowledge they could believe him on his oath? In answer to such evidence against character, the other party may cross-examine the witnesses as to their means of knowledge, and the grounds of their opinion, or may attack their general character, and by fresh evidence support the character of his own witness."—Farther, this able writer stated, that "if a witness, upon being questioned whether he has not been guilty of a felony, or of some infamous offence, deny the charge, the party against whom the witness has been called, will not be allowed to prove the truth of the charge. Such evidence is not admissible, either for the purpose of contradicting or of discrediting him." Upon this authority, seconded as it was by general principles, by common sense, and by the uniform practice in the courts of law, he argued, that the counsel on the other side could not be consistently allowed to follow up
879
Mr. Brougham
expressed his entire concurrence with the general principles laid down by his learned friends on the other side. He allowed that it was not competent to him to attempt to discredit a witness by entering into proofs of particular acts of criminality, with regard to which that witness had not been previously cross-examined. He agreed also in the expediency and justice of the principle, that to discredit an adverse witness, no party had a right to impeach him for any act out of the particular cause in issue, and that if his testimony could not be positively contradicted, it only remained to call evidence to show, that he was not entitled to credit, which evidence, the party in whose favour the witness appeared, would be fully at liberty to rebut by opposite testimony, as Mr. Phillips had so justly observed. Those principles were so clearly recognised and so uniformly acted upon in the courts of law, that he had no intention whatever to dispute their validity. But, then, those principles did not at all interfere with the proposition for which he contended in this case. For here his object was, to examine the witness solely as to the conduct of Sacchi in this particular cause in which he had been a principal evidence. He would go along with his learned friend on the other side in the doctrine, that it was not admissible to produce any other evidence of the guilt of an adverse witness, than the record of his conviction. He agreed also with his learned friends, that it would not be consistent to admit evidence against Sacchi in this case for any act of which he had had no notice before. Such a proceeding would, indeed, serve not only to involve the House in the trial of a collateral issue, but would be a most unfair proceeding towards the witness. But was that the situation of Sacchi? Was he not fully aware of the charges against him for attempting to corrupt and suborn witnesses? Did he not derive ample notice upon this subject from the context of the cross-examination? Could he possibly, after that cross-examination, complain of the want of adequate notice of the intention to contradict his testimony and im-
880
Mr. Denman
expressed his hope that that House would never lose sight of those principles of law which had been laid down by his learned friends on the other side, and subscribed to by his learned friend beside him. But he contended, with his learned friend beside him, that the proposed examination as to Sacchi was not at all inconsistent with those principles; and farther, that to prevent the question which on his side it was meant to put respecting Sacchi, would be to interfere with the administration of substantial justice. It was argued on the other side, that it was not competent to any party to examine a witness as to any charge against the adverse party or his witnesses, unless that party or witness had previous notice of such charge. But how could this doctrine be consistently maintained against an inquiry into charges which might have been discovered only in the course of the trial? Suppose that upon the very morning of the examination of a witness the attorney on the other side should have attempted to tamper with him, and that this attorney should have been also found to have offered money, and used other means to collect witnesses, could it possibly be held that no evidence should be admitted as to such conduct on the part of the agent, merely because he had had no previous notice of the charge? He maintained that such evidence, applying as it did to the rest of the cause, was perfectly admissible, and when given, it would be open to the other side to put the attorney into the box, and have his evidence in reply. He put a peculiar
881
Mr. Parke
observed, that, from the manner in which his learned friend had dwelt upon the agency of Sacchi, it would appear, that he placed but little reliance upon the other ground urged by his learned colleague. In the analogy which his learned friend had drawn between Sacchi and an attorney, his learned friend would impress, that Sacchi was an agent, but that was a point which he thought had been given up through their lordships' decision. But, as to the other point, his learned friend, Mr. Brougham, had admitted, that evidence could not be offered to prove a charge against any witness, unless that witness had had previous notice of such charge. His learned friend alleged, that notice had been given to Sacchi of the charge to which the last witness was adduced in the course of his cross-examination; but he (Mr. P.) was
882
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was extremely difficult for him to be called on, day after day, to state what was the practice in the courts below, when he had been so long separated from those courts. He therefore wished, as in former cases, to consult the opinion of the Judges on the subject, as the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the bill were not quite so apposite as to determine the judgment of the House in this case.
Nullum simile est idem,
883
Earl Grey
could see no objection to receiving the opinion of the Judges; but, whatever that opinion should be, he thought it material the particular inquiry should be followed up. Here was proof tendered, that a witness for the prosecution had not only corrupted others to give testimony in this cause, but had also given corrupt evidence himself. As to the question of agency, he by no means thought that question, as involved in Sacchi's conduct, set at rest; for, as the matter stood there were grounds for connecting Sacchi so with the Milan commission as to affix upon him an agency.
The Earl of Liverpool
suggested whether, without taking the step proposed, there was not another way of avoiding both this delay, and the further discussion of the points of law. Would not the difficulties be got rid of by calling Sacchi, and laying the foundation for the proposed evidence of the other witness?
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he had no objection, if Sacchi was in a situation to be now produced.
Lord Erskine
proposed, that the following Question should also be proposed to the learned Judges:
884
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he thought there could be very little difference of opinion as to the fact that the House could and ought to go into the inquiry. The effect of proposing the question to the Judges would be, to place the House again in the awkward situation of taking the opinion of the Judges as they did yesterday, and then dissenting from that opinion when it was obtained. Whether Sacchi was an agent or a witness, they ought to know whether he had not himself been active in suborning other persons to give evidence similar to and confirmatory of his own. They could not do justice in the present case without going into that inquiry. He therefore did not see why they should divide the question into so many points, merely for the purpose of puzzling themselves and giving unnecessary trouble to the Judges. In order to obviate this, he should move as an amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "that" in the original motion, for the purpose of substituting these words, "the question proposed be now put."
Lord Redesdale
said, that the arguments of counsel at the bar had produced a considerable effect upon his mind; and, though he had expressed a more positive opinion before, he now hesitated much to say that the question to the witness ought not to be answered.
The amendment was negatived.
The Questions were delivered to the lord chief justice, and the learned Judges requesting leave to withdraw to consider the same, leave was accordingly granted till to-morrow morning; and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, October 20, 1820.
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 &c." and forbearing Counsel for and against the same,
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose to call their lordships' attention to their order of the 21st of August, which was read by the clerk, and related to the daily attendance of the witnesses during the proceedings upon the bill. It was clear, that this order was intended for the purpose of
885
The Earl of Liverpool
remarked, that the noble marquis was not altogether correct in the statement of what had taken place yesterday. His object, most certainly, in making the suggestion respecting Sacchi, was, to obviate the delay which must necessarily arise in preparing a question for the Judges, and afterwards affording these learned personages time for considering that question. Before, however, he had spoken of Sacchi, he had inquired whether he was in attendance, and was informed, that though not actually on the spot at the moment, he was at his lodgings, where, if necessary, a messenger would be dispatched to bring him. The noble marquis must, therefore, be misinformed, when he said that Sacchi was not in London.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he certainly understood, that the counsel at the bar
886
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he had not made the statement on his own authority. He had made inquiry before he called their lordships' attention to the circumstance.
de die in diem.
Lord Chief Justice Abbott.
—My lords, the learned Judges have considered the questions proposed to them by your lordships. The first of those questions, my lords, is, "Whether, according to the practice and usage of the courts below, and according to law, where a witness in support of a prosecution has been examined in chief, and has not been asked in cross-examination as to any declarations made by him, or acts done by him, to procure persons corruptly to give evidence in support of the prosecution, it would be competent to the party accused to examine witnesses in his defence, to prove "such declarations or acts, without first calling back such witness examined in chief, to be examined or cross-examined as to the fact, whether he ever made such declarations or did such acts."
887
888
889
Mr. Brougham
begged to be allowed, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to repeat the answer which he had yesterday given. He had then, on the question being put to him, said, he had no objection to Sacchi being called, if he could be forthcoming immediately.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he must acknowledge, that he had not heard the answer of the learned counsel yesterday so distinctly as to state it correctly to the House.
Lord Sidmouth.
begged to say, it was not true that Sacchi had been out of London yesterday. When it was known, that he was wanted, a person had been immediately sent to his lodgings. He had been found, and had set oft" to come to the House.
The Attorney General.
—He is here my lord, but I understand his being produced is objected to.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Then I understand, Mr. Brougham, that you do not consent to his being examined.
Mr. Brougham
submitted to their lordships, that he had laid a sufficient ground for putting the question without Sacchi being called.
The Lord Chancellor
wished now to know whether it was their lordships' pleasure that the last question should be put. His lordship stated, that he concurred in the opinion given by the learned Judges.
Earl Grey
said, he would explain the grounds on which he thought the question ought to be put. The first was, on that of the general agency of Sacchi; the second, that of the discredit which would be thrown on his testimony if it should be proved, that he had been engaged in corruptly suborning witnesses. Now, whether it was competent for the counsel for the defence to proceed with the examination on the last ground, he should not then argue, though his opinion was, that enough appeared in Sacchi's evidence to authorize that course But. what he rose to say was,
890
The Earl of Liverpool
could not admit, that the connexion of Sacchi with the Milan commission was sufficient to lay a foundation for the examination. He did not think, that he stood at all upon the same footing as Restelli or Vimercati. It did not appear to him, that there was any proof of such general agency on the part of Sacchi as would lay a ground for the examination the counsel proposed to institute.
Lord Erskine
said, that however strongly he might feel disposed to concur with the opinion of the learned Judges upon a mere question of law, he could not discharge from his mind the reasons which induced him to differ from that opinion, and which he had on former occasions endeavoured to impress upon the House. Even if Sacchi had never been examined as a witness, and if there were no possibility of connecting him in any manner with the Milan commission, he should still be of opinion, that in this bill of Pains and Penalties it was the duty of their lordships to see to what extent the attempts to suborn witnesses had been carried, without reference to technical objections. The interests of justice were paramount to all considerations of the inconvenience which might arise from any technical irregularity; and justice to the illustrious accused demanded that their lordships should hear the evidence against Zancla and others, which might tend to throw light upon the conspiracy, even though that course were against the opinion of the learned Judges, for which he had the greatest respect upon questions merely legal. But it was idle to urge technical objections in a proceeding which bore no analogy, not only to any trial in the courts below, but to any proceeding, pretending to a judicial character, that had ever yet been instituted. We are not here (said his lordship, with great animation) in a court of justice. There was no law to bring the Queen to this trial. The learned Judges had declared, and it was admitted by the noble and learned lord, that the offence with which the Queen was charged was no offence at common law. If the Quean had committed no
891
The Earl of Darnley
referred to the evidence given by Demont, to show that agency was brought home to Sacchi. He thought the fact sufficiently proved, that Sacchi was either an agent, or a runner of the Milan commission.
Lord Manners
said, that the rules of evidence must be equally applicable on the one side and on the other. Both sides had a right to give evidence of a conspiracy if a conspiracy existed. Suppose, then, it had been stated, that there was a conspiracy to prevent witnesses from appearing on the part of the bill, or to remove some material witness, and that persons could be produced capable of speaking to facts connected with the refusal, would this be sufficient to prove a conspiracy against her majesty's friends, unless it could be shown that it had been done by some authorised agent of the party? For example, it would have availed nothing to show that Mr. Flynn, or any other person known to be in the interest of the Queen, was concerned in such a transaction, unless an authority could be clearly proved. It was necessary that this rule should be borne in mind in all cases, for it was equally necessary to the protection of innocence and the conviction of guilt; and their lordships could never do justice if they adhered to it on one side, and abandoned it on the other. So important did he consider this, that he thought it would be desirable to frame a question for the Judges, founded on the evidence which had been given with respect to agency, and to inquire whether, on such evidence, the question could be put? If they acted inconsistently with the rules acted upon in the courts below, the calumnies sent forth against them in libellous publications would appear to be justified. By adher-
892
The Marquis of Lansdown
was always ready to defer to the judgment of the learned persons to whom the questions had been referred on any subject of law; but the question was a mere question of fact; and he never would consent to have his judgment directed in such a case by others. In his opinion, the agency was proved; but, whatever might be the opinion of the House, they would depart from the line of their duty if they referred to any persons, a question of fact which they were bound to decide themselves. The question was, whether Sacchi was concerned as the agent for the Milan commission, for the purpose of carrying on the corrupt acts which had been alleged against them? On that ground only did his noble friend wish the question to be put, and on that ground it should have his support.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he agreed with the noble marquis, that questions on matters of fact ought not to be referred to the Judges. He could not agree with his noble and learned friend (lord Erskine), that a question of this kind ought to be tried without attending to the rules of law. The question here was, not whether they were to inquire into the charge of subornation of perjury, but what were the best means of ascertaining it? His lordship then put the question, whether it was their lordships' pleasure that the question be now put?
Mr. Brougham
then stated, that his learned friend, Mr. Denman, had no further questions to put to this witness, considering the decision to apply to all acts of corruption; but that he begged to submit, that there was a distinction between a case in the courts below between A. and B., or between a prosecutor and a defendant, and a legislative measure, like that before their lordships, where there are no two parties, technically speaking, before the court, and that the opinion expressed by the learned
893
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, as it was his intention to move for the production of papers relative to the removal of Restelli in September last, and also to his remaining out of this country since September last, it would be his duty to state to their lordships the grounds upon which he thought they could not consistently with public justice or a proper regard to their own dignity, abstain from calling for the evidence which he should ask. Their lordships well knew, that after an order or an understanding, which he supposed equivalent to an order, that no witness who had been examined in support of the bill should be withdrawn, that a most material witness had been withdrawn, by the direct instrumentality of the agent for the prosecution, in obtaining a passport at the Foreign-office, where (notwithstanding that order or understanding of their lordships) no orders had been given that such passports should be withheld. Upon this fact being known, the agent for the prosecution was ordered to appear at the bar, where he was examined upon oath as to the motives which induced him to send Restelli away. He held in his hand the Minutes of the Evidence of that agent, from which he should read the following:
894
895
The Earl of Liverpool
readily admitted that this case was very different from a case between any individual prosecutor or individual defendant, in which no court could call for the confidential correspondence of principal or agent. He admitted that the House, by having ordered the attorney-general to appear for the prosecution, held a mixed character in this case, and that the objection did not strictly apply. The House, however, having appointed agents, must have appointed them with all the reasonable privileges and all the confidence that belonged to agents. Their correspondence must become confidential, as much as that of the agents of an individual party, or of the illustrious defendant j in this case. Every act of theirs became confidential, and was not afterwards to be called for. This correspondence differed from a public record, because every thing of that kind was drawn up with little chance, he would admit, of ever being I laid before their lordships, but certainly
896
897
Lord King
said, that if he understood the state of the proceeding rightly, a conspiracy had been charged, and Restelli had been proved to be an active, he would say one of the most active, agents in suborning evidence. After that, Restelli had been removed, in a most improper manner, by an agent for the bill—in such a manner, that if it had occurred in any court of justice, the attorney would never have been suffered to practise again, and the cause which had been so much damaged would have been at once thrown out of Court. Reasons had been assigned in excuse for sending this man away; and it was to ascertain whether those reasons were the true ones, that the correspondence was now called for. The noble earl had said, there was no mystery in the business. Now, he thought, the whole proceeding, from beginning to end, bore a character of mystery. The noble earl had, on a former day, avowed himself to be the responsible author of the proceedings; but to-day he seemed rather to shrink from that avowal, and to wish to make the House the principals; while his colleagues, one and all, sheltered themselves in an uniform silence, and did not offer a word in defence of their leader. It was contended, by ministers, or rather for them, that they had no interest in the success or the failure of this measure; and, if that were the case, he could only say that they had stronger nerves than any set of ministers that had been in office since the time of the Cabal. The noble earl had said, that there was nothing mysterious in this matter; but, for his own part, he thought the whole transaction bore the character of mystery. Whoever the prosecutors were, if they adopted the evidence, they must also adopt the agents by whom that evidence was procured. But it appeared that witnesses had been brought forward without the knowledge of the prosecutors, or at least without the knowledge of any of their avowed agents, for Barbara Kress had been procured, not by English, but by German agents. The Hanoverian government, he apprehended, were interested in the steps that might be taken to unravel this mystery. In short, it was clear that machinery had been at
898
Lord Ellenborough
said, he had formerly expressed his opinion upon this subject, and nothing had since occurred to alter that opinion. It being admitted, that the prosecution in this case was different from an ordinary prosecution, it followed necessarily that the agents also stood in a different situation from ordinary agents. It was impossible, that an agent should exercise rights which his principal did not possess, or, possessing, might not be able to exercise. Now, what was the reason assigned for withholding this correspondence? Why, it was alleged, that concealment might be necessary. God forbid that any concealment should be necessary here! He felt convinced, that it was not desirable, and that it was not necessary. But the objection now made to the production of these papers, if it was well-founded, should have been made earlier. The same objection should have been made to the evidence of that person who had been examined at their bar respecting the removal of Restelli; but that had not been done, nor had Mr. Powell made the slightest objection to answer the questions which were put to him in his character of agent. If, then, it was not proper to call for the production of these papers, it was not proper to examine that person on the same subject to which the papers referred; for these letters, it should be borne in mind, were required for the very same object for which Mr. Powell had been examined. An important witness had in this case been removed, and certain reasons had been assigned to their lordships for his abstraction. If these alleged reasons were the true ones, the papers in question would still be so far satisfactory, that they must convince their lordships of Restelli's having been sent away for the purpose which Mr. Powell had stated at their bar: but if, on the contrary, colonel Browne's statement on the subject should be found to be different from that of the attorney,
899
The Earl of Rosslyn
apprehended, that the privilege which an agent enjoyed of being protected against giving evidence which would lead him to betray the confidence of his principal, was not the privilege of the agent, but of the principal. If that were the case, and if the client waved his right, there could be no doubt that the attorney might be called to give evidence. In this case, either ministers or the House were the client; and if the discovery of truth was the object in view, as both ministers and the House professed, then the only question was, whether their lordships, in the investigation of a legislative measure, would exclude truth, and pass the bill without availing themselves of the means of knowledge that were within their reach?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that, subject to the understanding that the papers were to be referred to a secret committee, he should not press his objection to the motion.
The Lord Chancellor,
after what had taken place, did not mean to support the objection, as an objection; but the proceeding about to be adopted was so important, that he desired not to be included in the number of those who thought that there was no objection to it. In the first place, their lordships must allow justice to be done to the witness at the bar; for, if Mr. Powell had not taken the objection to his being examined as a professional agent, he would have deserved never to have been employed as an agent again. If there were particular circumstances to warrant the House in surmounting the objection which, in his opinion, existed to the proposition before them, let it be so. But their lordships ought to be careful how they acted. For first, if the correspondence was called for on the ground, that the House was the principal in the case, be saw no reason why they should not call for the brief of the attorney-general,
900
Lord Redesdale
denied, that any evidence had been adduced which fixed Restelli as an agent for the bill.
Lord Erskine
considered the acts of Restelli as having clearly invested him with the character of an agent. As to the argument of the learned lord on the woolsack, that on the principle on which the present motion was founded, the attorney-general might be required to produce his brief, he had only to observe, that the attorney-general was not charged with having been guilty of any contempt of their lordships' orders.
The Marquis of Lansdown
begged leave to make one remark on what had been said by the learned lord on the woolsack. The learned lord in the protection which he had thought it necessary to give to Mr. Powell, had stated that no insinuations should be made against the attorney for refusing to produce the letters that had passed between him and colonel Browne. In this opinion he agreed; and in the statement he had made he had carefully abstained from any animadversion what ever on that part of Mr. Powell's conduct. If, therefore, the learned lord alluded to him——
The Lord Chancellor
begged to interrupt the noble marquis, and to say, that if he had meant to allude to the noble marquis he should have done it in terms that could not have been misunderstood. He must also say, that, during all the time that he had had the honour of sitting in
901
The Marquis of Lansdown
briefly replied to the objections that had been urged against the motion. From the moment that Mr. Powell stated he had received these letters from colonel Browne, he stopped; the letters then became the best possible evidence, and their lordships might have called on him to state,
viva voce,
The Earl of Liverpool
suggested, that the motion should be, that the select committee should have authority to call on Mr. Powell for such parts of the correspondence as might be necessary to elucidate the object in view. As the noble marquis and himself agreed as to the substance of the proposition, it would, perhaps, be better to leave the particular arrangement of it to a later period of the day.
Lord Holland
observed, that the whole case resolved itself into one of privilege.
The Marquis of Buckingham
did not think, if eliciting the truth was their lordships' object, that it could be best effected by submitting the proposed extracts to a secret committee. He did not say it was not right to do so, but if it were right to break through those rules that directed the courts of justice on this subject, he thought the committee should have the farther power to sift and inquire into those causes that led to Restelli's being sent out of the country.
902
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought, that, if the committee were appointed, Mr. Powell should select such parts of the letters as referred to the mission of Restelli; but he could not approve of the motion in any shape. It was of greater extent than their lordships were aware; it laid down the principle that an agent might be called as an evidence, and have his whole correspondence examined. He maintained that, if this motion were agreed to, there was an end of all confidence between agent and principal; and he did not think that in future any agent could safely do what he might think necessary for the interests of his client, subject to the apprehension that, at a future period, the whole of his conduct and correspondence might be examined. He thought this motion would set a more dangerous example than any other motion he had ever heard made. If this was a public offence, was it fitting that a secret committee should judge of it? It was an offence against the whole House, and therefore a secret committee could not be made the judges of it, unless a part were to decide on the privileges of the whole. If it was necessary for parliament to inquire into the subject, let it make the inquiry by means which would not break down all the precedents of parliament. To lay the confidential correspondence of an agent before a secret committee was what he could not agree to.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that the argument of his noble friend was all in favour of his original motion; but when his noble friend, or any other noble lord, alluded to this as a course unprecedented in parliamentary proceedings, he must state to him, in reply, that, fo far from being unprecedented, scarcely more than one year had elapsed, since that very course had been laid down by the legislature as the most consonant to the practice of parliament. It had been laid down at the commencement of this proceeding by the noble earl opposite in the House of Lords; and in the other House of parliament, in the case of Mr. Wyndham Quin, the correspondence between Mr. Grady and Mr. Carew Smith had been ordered to be produced before the. House, and referred to a secrect committee. He thought the course proposed, of sending such papers before a secret committee, was by no means an unparliamentary one.
903
The Earl of Liverpool
was by no means disposed to offer any opposition to the suggestions just thrown out, conceiving, at the same time, that nothing ought to be referred to the secret committee but the correspondence between Mr. Powell and colonel Browne as to the causes which had induced the sending Restelli out of the country, and the reasons of his not having returned. He did, therefore, imagine, that that must and ought to be arranged in such a manner that no other part of the correspondence should be brought into question, or under inspection. If he were a member of the committee (which he was desirious not to be), he should consider that Mr. Powell ought to attend with the required extracts from the correspondence, and that he should be prepared to verify them by showing the originals.
The Earl of Lauderdale
adverting to the precedent which had been quoted by his noble friend, protested against deriving
904
Earl Morton
said, that Mr. Powell had been sworn and interrogated as to sending Restelli away, and now their lordships wished to have his correspondence referred to a secret committee. If this were agreed to, no man in his senses would ever become an agent.
The Earl of Limerick
observed, that Mr. Grady and Mr. Carew Smith, whose correspondence had been referred, by the House of Commons, to a secret committee, were not confidential agents. It was in the fact, that Mr. Powell and colonel Browne were confidential agents that his great objection against the proposed proceeding resided. There could not be a more mischievous principle, than that confidential agents should be liable to make disclosures such as those now required. It was a principle pregnant with every possible danger to society. On these grounds, he should certainly oppose both the original and the modified proposition.
The Marquis of Buckingham
thought it would be sufficient for the purposes of the committee if they were furnished with the necessary extracts only; and recommended that a power should be reserved to Mr. Powell to give explanations, if called for.
The Lord Chancellor
confessed, that it appeared to him, from the words of the motion, that it was presumed the committee would see the necessity of examining all the correspondence, in order to ascertain how much referred to the point to be inquired into. He might move an amendment to correct the terms of the motion, if he were acting in any other situation than that in which he stood; but the House must see it was impossible. If any noble lord chose to move such an amendment, it was of course open to him. Noble lords appeared to have grounded the opinion of the necessity of Mr. Powell's examination before a secret committee—or, at any rate, to have defended such a course—upon what they called the contempt of that gentleman. They talked of the contempt of Mr. Powell; but this correspondence was between him and colonel Browne. What right had they, then, to ask colonel Browne? Had he been guilty of any contempt of their House;
905
Lord Redesdale
objected to the original proposition, but maintained that the reference to a secret committee was only a worse way of doing the same thing. He apprehended that their lordships had no right to call on Mr. Powell to betray colonel Browne's confidence. When their lordships called Mr. Powell to the bar, they precluded themselves from doing that which it was now proposed to do. If they intended to call for the correspondence, they should not have gone so far in the examination. That was the principle of every court, in which there was any regularity in the administration of justice. What their lordships were now recommended to do, appeared to him to be an act of gross injustice. He protested against it in every shape; but most especially in the shape of a reference to a secret committee. Rather than that Mr. Powell ought to be required to extract from his letter to colonel Browne, the passages in which he stated his motives for selecting Restelli as the courier to be sent out to Italy (for that was all), and those parts of col. Browne's answer which related to the causes that had prevented Restelli's return.
Earl Grey
said, that he was ready to concur either with the motion which was now in the hands of the learned lord on the woolsack, or in any other motion which should be thought proper for the same purpose. It had been said, that, by entertaining either proposition, he would be countenancing an act of real injustice. He trusted that it was unnecessary for him to say, that he did not go upon any such motive. So far from thinking that the effect of this inquiry would be to produce gross injustice, in his opinion no substantial justice could be done without it. Their lordships, upon the 21st of August, made an order that the witnesses summoned in this cause should attend,
de die in diem.
906
907
908
The Earl of Liverpool
had no objection to offer against a motion, that Mr. Powell should lay before the House copies of such parts of his correspondence with colonel Browne as related to Restelli's mission to Milan; nor had he any objection to Mr. Powell's being again called to the bar and examined upon that part of the transaction. But he had a decided objection to the production of the original correspondence; because those letters related to other matters not at all connected with this part of the case. He conceived the whole purpose of the noble mover would be attained by directing that Mr. Powell should produce a sealed copy of that part of the correspondence which referred to Restelli's mission to Milan; and by afterwards referring that copy to a secret committee of their lordships, giving to that committee the power of examining Mr. Powell, in order to verify the extracts.
Earl Grey
said, his object was, to conduct the inquiry in such a manner as to obviate any objection which might be urged against it. He had no objection, therefore, to take it as it was proposed by the noble lord.
The Earl of Limerick
repeated the objections he had urged against the proposed course of proceeding. He most strongly objected to the principle here, or in any case, of calling on the agent. In all cases, too, he was most averse to the appointment of secret committees, unless they were indispensably required. His objections remained unaltered; and if he should find no noble lord to entertain his own feeling on the subject, he would divide singly.
Earl Manvers
said, he would support any motion that had for its object the accounting for this strange mission of Restelli to Milan. The reasons given at their lordships' bar by Mr. Powell were not at all satisfactory to his mind. He should, therefore, consider himself guilty of a gross dereliction of duty, if he did not support any motion, the object of which was to account for this extraordinary transaction—a transaction which,
909
Lord Somers
objected to the principle upon which both the motion and amendment were grounded. He could not support a proceeding, the tendency of which was, to do away with those laws, which were most essential to the preservation of our glorious constitution. He conceived that there was no act more destructive to the constitution, than that which went to destroy that confidence which existed between agents and their principals. He would ask, how any man could engage with honour and satisfaction in any case, if he was to be under the continual fear of having his letters and communications brought before the public? Nothing could have a more injurious tendency than the establishment of such a precedent. If he rightly understood the noble lord who spoke last, his vote was grounded rather on the conduct of Mr. Powell, than on the merits of the question itself.
Earl Manvers
begged to say three words in explanation. The noble lord had certainly misunderstood him. He had made no reference whatever to the witness, who was not, at the moment, in his mind, excepting only as regarded the fact of Restelli's absence, which he considered most mysterious and singular. He had no hesitation in saying, that he conceived it was absolutely necessary for Mr. Powell's character, that it should be cleared up. He admitted that there was difficulty in the course proposed, but of two evils he would choose the least, and would prefer the proposed inquiry rather than endure the odium which the circumstance must otherwise draw upon them.
The Earl of Harewood
perfectly agreed with those who thought that there was a very great difficulty in this question. On the one hand, he should be the last man in the world to authorize the production of any confidential communication between a principal and his agent; because a line of that description, taken by that House, would be absolutely ruinous to all confidence between man and man. But, under the particular circumstances of this case, notwithstanding Mr. Powell's words and declarations, which he was disposed to take as true, there was something on the face of it which required the House to investigate the whole of the corres-
910
The Earl of Hardwicke
said, he concurred fully with what had fallen from the noble earl who had last spoken.
Earl Grey
observed, that his motion would be so restricted that every noble lord would have full security that the object in view, and that only, would be obtained. In answer to what had fallen from a noble lord, he had only to observe, that it would, in his opinion, be better to proceed as was now proposed, than to allow the imputation which the absence of this witness would cast upon their proceedings. If their lordships were determined not to adopt his amendment, he was determined to propose an immediate suspension of their proceedings. What he now proposed was, first, to move as an amendment to his noble friend's motion, "That Mr. Powell be directed to produce at the bar such extracts from the correspondence between him and colonel Browne as related to the mission of Restelli to Milan." He intended to follow up this motion with another, namely, "That a secret committee should be appointed to inquire into those papers, and report thereon; with power to examine Mr. Powell, in order "to compare his answers at the bar with those extracts." He wished it to be understood that the functions of the committee were to be strictly limited to this inquiry.
The Earl of Donoughmore
thought, the House were imperatively called upon to make further inquiry into this transaction. This committee was not called for with any view of contradicting Mr. Powell's evidence, but for the purpose of corroborating it, by a reference to the original
911
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that he so entirely concurred in the motions as amended by his noble friend, that he had no objection whatever to withdraw his own motion to make room for their adoption. It was, he thought, indispensable for the character of the House that this inquiry into Restelli's journey should go on. The committee would, of course, not enter further into the examination of the original letters than to verify the extracts: to that their examination would, of course, be restricted, and the House might rely with confidence upon the propriety of its committee, and that they would not exceed the limits assigned to them.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that if they decided upon going into this inquiry at all, it was, of course, necessary they should go into it effectively; but his difficulty was how they could confine their examination of the originals to a verification of the extracted parts merely relating to Restelli's business. He could not see how the whole of the correspondence could be opened without going further than he thought the House ought to go consistently with the principles of justice.
Earl Grey
repeated, that he meant simply to confine the committee to a verification of the extracts, by comparing them with the originals; and not to go through the whole correspondence in any way beyond what was actually necessary for the purpose of verification.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that the proceedings of the committee ought to be opened as wide as truth required. What was it they were now about to do? It was, in fact, little or nothing, compared with what the case called for. They were by this motion merely calling upon Mr. Powell to make out his own case. As the committee now stood restricted, Mr. Powell would be the committee, and not the noble lords whom the House might
912
The Marquis of Lansdown,
with reference to what had fallen from his noble friend who spoke last, observed, that what the House was discussing had nothing* whatever to do with counsel [Hear, hear!] It was merely an inquiry within the House respecting the violation of one of its own orders [Hear!] The intended proceeding was not either a negative one, but rather of an affirmative character; for it was to show whether the evidence given at their bar was correct, according to the documents referred to in that evidence. It was, in fact, to pursue the ends of justice by getting at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as connected with a particular part of this transaction.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, in explanation, that what he complained of was Mr. Powell's having to make the extracts instead of the committee.
Earl Grey
hoped, in explanation, to be allowed to say, that the documentary evidence was called for to support what Mr. Powell had said at their lordships' bar. The only power which the committee required in furtherance of this ob-
913
The Lord Chancellor
then put the question, that Mr. Powell do produce the extracts of the correspondence between him and colonel Browne relative to Restelli's mission to Milan, and the House divided—
Contents
122
Not-contents
79
Majority in favour of the motion
43
On re-entering the House, we found the earl of Carnarvon on his legs, contending that the inquiry ought not to be by a secret committee, but by the House. The motion for a secret committee was, however, carried without a division, and the following peers were then appointed on the committee:
The Lord President of the Council.
Earl of Lauderdale.
Lord Erskine.
Earl Grey.
Lord Ross.
Earl of Rosslyn.
Lord Amherst.
Lord Manners.
Marquis of Lansdown.
Lord Arden.
Lord Ellenborough.
The following Protest against the appointment of the said Committee was entered on the Journals:
"DISSENTIENT—Because this resolution appears to be inconsistent with the principles upon which all courts refuse to compel the production of any part of the confidential correspondence of professional persons employed confidentially as such in the matters to which the correspondence relates.
"Because no particular circumstances in this case appear to be sufficient to authorize our not adhering to the rules of proceeding founded on those principles.
"Because, therefore, this resolution, if acted upon as a precedent, may dangerously affect the administration of justice.
Eldon, C.
Clinton.
Queensberry.
Carrington.
Rous.
Cathcart.
Montague.
Loftus (Marq. of Ely).
Somers.
Farnham.
Belmore.
Northampton.
Mayo.
Limerick.
Brooke & Warwick.
Saltersford (Earl of Courtown).
Gordon (Marquis of Huntley).
914
Douglas of Lochleven (Earl of Morton).
Winchester.
Strange (Duke of Athol).
Chandos - Buckingham.
Grey.
Forbes.
Kingston.
Stewart of Castle
Orford.
Stewart (Earl of Moray).
Macclesfield.
Kenyon.
Coventry.
Digby.
William H. (Duke of Clarence).
Shaftesbury.
Lonsdale.
Cornwallis.
Huntingdon.
Ailesbury.
Mansfield.
Chatham.
Redesdale.
Powis.
Meldrum (Earl of Aboyne).
Stamford and Warrington.
Pomfret.
Exmouth.
Falmouth.
Richmond & Lennox.
Abingdon.
Northwick.
Suffield.
Cunynghame.
Monteagle (Marquis of Sligo).
Harris.
Walsingham.
Sydney."
Napier.
The Counsel were again called in.
Mr. Brougham
submitted, that it became his duty, and a matter of necessity, to make an application on behalf of her majesty, with respect to an inquiry, in which the counsel were allowed to bear a part on Friday and Saturday last, which applied to a material witness of the name of Restelli; that an agent for the prosecution, who appeared to be the person who sent the witness out of the way, was examined, in the course of which examination the House were pleased to direct, that the counsel for and against the bill should have permission to put certain questions to the witness, on the subject matter of the inquiry into his conduct; that the counsel thereby necessarily became parties to the proceeding; that it became necessary for him now to ask for the assistance of their lordships to investigate the obstruction by which they were impeded, by the production of the whole correspondence either to the House or to a committee of the same, and that the counsel for the Queen, who had been allowed to take a part in the examination of Mr. Powell, or some of them, should be permitted to take a part in his further examination upon this subject.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Carnarvon
conceived that Mr. Powell ought to be called in again.
915
The Lord Chancellor
said, that, without making any observation, he would merely say Not-content; and he would do so, because he considered the proceeding a most dangerous one.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that the sending Restelli out of the country amounted to a breach of their lordships' order; and that, too, by the agent for the bill. Would not their lordships then inquire into the conduct of that individual?
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that if any special ground were stated for bringing up Mr. Powell, that might be a question for further consideration; but, at the present moment, he would resist the motion.
The Marquis of Lansdown
apprehended, that for the purposes of justice and the attainment of truth, Mr. Powell ought to be examined, and to be ordered to produce the papers which he had in his possession. He thought that, as counsel had been present at his former examination, they ought to be permitted to attend and future examination.
Lord Holland
said, that, their lordships had already called upon the counsel to assist in the inquiry respecting the disappearance of Restelli. That inquiry was not deemed satisfactory. Their lordships discovered that mysteries hung about that transaction which it was necessary to clear away. They established a committee called Select; but it was well understood, that that committee was to be a secret committee; that they were not to divulge their proceedings either to their lordships or to the public. Their lordships, it would seem, were resolved not to communicate with counsel, though they had done so on the former occasion. Their lordships must have had some reason for establishing a committee; the reason was, that their lordships felt that the inquiry was neither complete nor satisfac-
916
Lord Ellenborough
thought that the obstruction of Restelli should be considered in two points of view; first, as an obstruction to her majesty's defence; and secondly, as a breach of privilege. It was under the first
917
The Earl of Darnley
looked upon the obstruction which had taken place as a great injustice towards her majesty; and, in that point of view, he considered that the counsel ought to be allowed to reexamine Mr. Powell. He agreed, that with the case of a breach of privilege alone the counsel had nothing to do; but when an obstruction to the defence of their illustrious client arose out of it, he thought they ought to be allowed a very considerable latitude in their re-examination. He did not think, therefore, that this application could be resisted with that view to substantial justice which the noble earl opposite had enforced on a former occasion. If their lordships should refuse this application, he would exercise his privilege as a peer, and put questions to Mr. Powell on this subject when he came to the bar with the papers. He fully concurred with his noble friend (lord Holland) in his observations on the whole of this unfortunate case; and he would repeat, that it was a disgusting and contemptible proceeding. In this opinion he was more and more confirmed every day. He was firmly convinced, that their difficulties on the subject would increase daily, and that they would never arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. When he came daily to that House, and saw the paraphernalia by which they were surrounded, he doubted whether he was not waking from some feverish dream.
"Ac velut in somnis oculos ubi languida pressit Nocte quies, nequicquam avidos extendere cursus Velle videmur, et in mediis conatibus ægri Succidimus; non lingua valet, non corpore notæ Suffciunt vires, nee vox nee verba sequuntur."
918
Mr. Brougham
stated, that he would now proceed to another part of the case, understanding it to be open to him to resume his application as to taking a part in the examination when it was determined that Mr. Powell should be called.
Then Colonel Alessandro Olivieri,
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Tindal, through the Interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto:
919
920
921
Mr. Attorney General.
922
923
924
925
Re-examined by Mr.
Tindal.
You have been asked whether you ever saw the wife of Pergami at Pesaro, have you ever seen your own there? Never, she never came to Pesaro.
You have been asked, whether any English ladies visited her royal highness at Rome; do you know whether there were any English ladies of consequence at that time at Rome? I do not know.
What part of the year was it you are speaking of? 1817.
What part of the year, what season? In the months of June and July.
Is that the season when the Malaria prevails at Rome? It begins then, certainly.
You were asked whether at Pesaro any English ladies visited her royal highness; do you know of any English families being there? None.
Examined by the
Lords.
Lord Ellenborough.
—You say, count Schiavini left Rome the day after her royal highness, left for Sinigaglia; at what hour did he leave Rome? He set out on the following; evening, together with the equipage.
926
Earl of Liverpool.
—In what situation was Faustina in her royal highness's family? I think she was charged with keeping of the effects, of the linen j but it is a thing that did not belong to me, and I do not remember. I beg you will say to these noble lords, that I cannot know with certainty, because it was not my own department, and I did not go about inquiring into those details.
Earl Grey.
—Were you acquainted with Sacchi before he entered the service of the princess of Wales? I had known him at Rome.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—Where did yon see the Lugano newspaper that first informed you of the proceedings against herroyal highness? At Rome.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Ordered, that the further consideration and second reading of the said bill be adjourned to to-morrow morning ten o'clock.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, October 21, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the farther 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; Counsel were accordingly called in.
Then Lieutenant Hownam
was called, in order that he might produce his diploma of the order of Saint Caroline; but not being in attendance, the attorney-general of the Queen tendered the same to the House, stating that it came out of the custody of Mr. Vizard the Queen's solicitor. The Counsel were informed, that it must be delivered in by lieutenant Hownam himself.
Then
John Allen Powell,
Lord Chancellor.
—You have been directed to attend, to deliver in certain papers sealed, are you prepared to deliver in those papers? In obedience to the orders of the House, I hold in my hands the papers which are required of me, and I beg it may be considered by the House, that my objection to the production of them did not arise from any thing personal to myself, but from a sense of the character in which I stood.
927
The Marquis of Lansdown
suggested, that Mr. Powell should be desired to state what the papers were which he had brought.
The Earl of Lauderdale
could not concur in this suggestion. Mr. Powell had received an order of the House to present certain sealed extracts: he had now presented those extracts in the manner ordered by the House. Surely, therefore, it was for the secret committee to which the papers were ordered to be referred, to see if Mr. Powell had complied with their lordships' order. He could not see why the House should at first proceed to put any questions whatever to Mr. Powell.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that in his opinion the suggestion was a proper one for examining Mr. Powell now as to these papers. He certainly ought to be asked whether the extracts he had brought were the whole of the extracts in colonel Browne's correspondence which related to Restelli's mission, and whether the original letters were also in the House for the verification of the extracts by comparison.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, his objection was not that proper inquiries should not be made from Mr. Powell for any purpose of verification that might be thought necessary; but that inquiry, he thought, should be left to the secret committee.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he could not see upon what grounds the House could now put questions to Mr. Powell. They had ordered that gentleman to produce certain papers, which they had also ordered should be referred to a secret committee. The papers being now in the House, the first step to be taken was to send them to the committee.
The Earl of Darnley
was of opinion that Mr. Powell should be asked to describe the papers, and to say whether the whole of the extracts were in the sealed parcel.
Earl Grey
thought, that at present the plain course for their lordships was to send the papers to the secret committee. It would be quite time enough for the House to take the matter up when the committee had made their report.
The sealed packet was delivered in; and the witness was directed to attend the secret committee at the adjournment of the House.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then Tomaso Lago Maggiore
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as
928
Mr. Wilde
said, he put the question in order to ascertain whether the witness was quite certain on this point, and, with this view, he conceived that he had a right to put as leading a question as if he were engaged in a cross examination.
Mr. Solicitor General
maintained, that his objection had not been at all answered by what had just been stated. In examining his own witness, if that witness had stated any thing in contradiction to what had been stated by another witness on the same side, such a question might be; but in the present case he maintained the learned counsel had no right to put a leading question.
Mr. Solicitor General.
929
930
931
932
Mr. Wilde.
Mr. Wilde.
—Do you know how the allowance came to be made to your family, for what reason? The government has ordered so.
Mr. Cohen.
—He said, when they took down my examination.
933
Su di questo é slato il giuramento.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—When you took the oath, which you say you have taken, did you hold up your three fingers in this way.
Mr. Solicitor General
—The witness, on cross-examination, had said, that he took an oath, and his learned friends on the other side, in order to do away the effect of that answer on their lordships' minds, had asked him questions as to the forms of oaths in this country.
The Lord Chancellor
thought, the best way would be, to ask the witness what he did when he took the oath.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he and his learned friends had put that very question some five or six times; but the witness, whose intellect was not very acute, always went into an account of what he said, about what the princess of Wales said; and thus they did sot seem to make any progress at all.
Mr. Solicitor General
complained that his learned friends were by no means fair: first, they put their questions to this witness generally, and then, not being answered to their satisfaction, they put particular ones—such as "Was there a book there?" "Did you kiss the cross?" and so on. Surely, then, he was entitled to ask the witness, whether or no he held up his fingers when he swore, which he understood to be the form of the country.
The Lord Chancellor
thought there was no occasion for any difficulty on this point. He
934
Mr. Solicitor General.
—At the time when you say you took the oath, did you hold up your three fingers in this form? No, I did not.
Lords.
Earl Grey.
—Did you ever take an oath before any tribunal at any time? No.
Lord Ellenborough.
—Did the rowers in this boat sit or stand? They stood.
Earl of Laderdale.
—Have you of late years found any defect in your eyes? About two years since they began to fail; I had been ill.
Earl of Cathcart.
—You have stated, you rowed the oar nearest to her royal high-
935
About two feet.
Marquis of Buckingham.
—Are the silver Napoleons, which you have mentioned having been allowed for the daily subsistence, what are commonly called five-franc pieces? No, they are called Napoleons.
Then Chevalier Carlo Vassali
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined as follows, by Mr. Denman, through the Interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
Mr. Attorney General.
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
l.
l.
Lords.
Earl of Liverpool.
—Do you know whether any person slept in the princess's room at Scharnitz? No.
954
Lord Ellenborough.
—Did you say that Carlo Forti was first taken into her royal highness's service at Loretto? I said that Carlo Forti entered her royal highness's service at Rome, and that previously he set out from Loretto with a dispatch.
Earl Grey.
—Did he travel in her royal highness's suite in her journey from Milan to Loretto? From Milan to Loretto, he travelled in the suite of her royal highness.
Lord Calthorpe.
—When you returned from Inspruck to Scharnitz, did you immediately upon your arrival at Scharnitz, go into her royal highness's room? Yes.
Mr. Brougham.
—With very great submission to your lordships I must state that this question cannot be put. The question assumes the witness to have said that Pergami rested in that room, a circumstance which he never had stated.
955
Earl of Cathcart.
—You have stated, that at Munich her royal highness dined with the king of Bavaria, and that you were also present, did her majesty the Queen of Bavaria dine at table on that occasion? She did.
Earl of Lauderdale.
—When did you last see the countess Oldi? When I went to fetch her, at Dover.
956
Earl Grosvenor.
—Was that the evening that Pergami was indisposed? He went away during the day, being ill; but in the evening he appeared to be no more ill, for he came to accompany us.
Earl of Rosebery.
—Did the princess remain in the saloon the whole evening, from her return from dinner till she went out to the evening party? Yes.
957
Mr. Brougham
begged to state, why he was not prepared at this hour to call another witness. He then addressed the House in the following terms: "It is of great importance for me to state to your lordships the predicament in which I and the other counsel for her majesty are placed. We have proceeded thus far with the case of our illustrious client—with what success and fulness of evidence it will remain for the House hereafter to decide. But I now have to submit to your lordships, that we find ourselves reduced to the necessity of requiring the assistance of the Court before which we are acting, and to recur to the demand made upon its justice in the outset of this proceeding, or of that part of this proceeding, which consists of the defence of her majesty. Your lordships will recollect, that, in consequence of the desire expressed by the House, we began that defence by calling a witness who had been sent over to bring from Carlsruhe a person of great distinction, and as a witness not only of the highest importance, but of every importance to the Queen's case; who was to prove not only all that was deficient in our evidence, but to negative the testimony of Kress; who was to follow up all that we had urged against the principle and the particular facts of the bill, by showing, what he alone could show, that her majesty was not the person described in the preamble—that she was not given to low habits—that she did not frequent base company—that she did not skulk from the society of her equals—and, above all, that she did not screen herself from intercourse with her friends and-family relations. On the contrary, he was to prove that long after the time to which the evidence for the bill applies—long after her majesty's return from the long voyage—she came into Germany, frequented the courts of her blood-relations and allied connexions, and in their presence placed herself with her suite, whom they received; and that there, and not in Italy, she desired to fix her abode, and had adopted measures for taking a palace, where she might in future remain. She had no wish to skulk from thence, but proposed to stay there for the rest of her days, for aught I know, in the immediate neighbourhood of her serene relatives. After what I have already proved, and after the comments on the testimony on the other side, I should consider this evidence complete, decisive, plenary, and as leaving me not one
958
959
Counsel were then ordered to withdraw.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that after the long examination of the witness who had just withdrawn, it had appeared to him sufficiently late in the day not to call another. On this account he had risen to move the adjournment, and also to lay on the table, by command of his majesty, the papers to which the learned gentleman had referred. They had been re-
960
Mr. Attorney General
asked, what course the counsel for her majesty now intended to pursue?
Mr. Brougham
replied, "I thought it my duty to give the explanation I have afforded why we did not proceed with more evidence to-day. I shall take till the next meeting of the Court to consider what course the counsel for her majesty must now follow."
The following is a Copy of the
CORRESPONDENCE
Relative to baron d'Ende's appearance before the House of Lords as a witness on the part of her majesty the Queen, October, 1820.
DESPATCH
from viscount Castlereagh to Mr. Lamb, dated Foreign Office, October
Foreign Office, October 5.
Sir,—I am to acquaint you that the Queen's law servants have this day represented to the House of Peers, that the baron d'Ende, a chamberlain in the service of the grand duke of Baden, and who was assigned to attend upon her majesty when princess of Wales, during the period of her visit to Carlsruhe in the year 1817, is a material witness for the Queen's defence; that the baron had actually consented (subject to the permission of his royal highness the grand duke) to give his personal attendance in London for this purpose, but that, upon his royal highness the grand duke's late return to Carlsruhe, this consent (as the Queen's agent, Mr. Leman, has deposed) was, upon the part of the grand
961
The legal advisers of the Queen having re-presented, that they still continue to regard the presence of this individual as of importance to her majesty's defence, and his majesty being solicitous, with the least possible delay, to give effect to their wishes, I have received the king's commands to direct you will, without loss of time, on receipt of this despatch, proceed to Carlsruhe, for the purpose of giving, by your personal representations and exertions, the utmost possible weight to the request which, in the king's 'name, you are authorized to make to the grand duke upon this matter.
The British government are fully sensible of I he respect due to the law and practice of independent states with regard to the means which the sovereign power may cither be enabled, or think fit, to employ, for the purposes of inducing, permitting, or compelling its subjects to appear, in order to give evidence before the tribunals of a foreign state; but they are persuaded that, whatever may be the rule which the grand duke of Baden may think fit to lay down on such matters, his royal highness's sense of justice will suffer the benefit or the inconvenience of such rule to operate equally and with perfect impartiality on the side of the defence as well as of the charge. Now, as it appears by the evidence of Barbara Kress, that she was not only permitted, but in some measure required, to give her attendance upon these proceedings in support of the bill, at the instance of the attorney-general, no doubt can be entertained that, when you shall have brought the different course which is stated to have been pursued in the case of the baron d'Ende under the grand duke's notice, his royal highness will at once, whatever may be the temporary inconvenience to his royal highness's personal service, give orders for the baron's being permitted instantly to set out for this country, and, in the present advanced stage of the proceedings, you will consider it your duty to press that this gentleman's departure and journey may be as much as possible accelerated.
I should hope, that the simple statement of this case will be sufficient to give effect to the object with which you are charged: but in
962
I am, &c. Signed CASTLEREAGH. To the Hon. F. Lamb, &c.
DESPATCH
from Mr. Lamb to Viscount Castlercagh, dated Carlsruhe, Oct.
My lord,—On the morning of the 10th I received your lordship's letter relative to the baron d'Ende. On the 11th I reached Carlsruhe, and obtained an interview with the baron de Berslett. That minister went immediately afterwards to the grand duke, and informed me, on his return from his royal highness, that the obstacles to the departure of the baron could only be overcome by an official application. The inclosed correspondence will show what steps were taken in consequence, and their result. It may be permitted me to remark, that my application has been completely successful, and that the failure of the object of his mission to this place was to be attributed solely to the unexpected reply of the baron d'Ende himself. I have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient servant,
(Signed) F. LAMB.
To Viscount Castlereagh, K. G. &c.
NOTE
from Mr. Lamb to the Baron de Berstett, dated Carlsruhe, October
The undersigned, &c. has learned with regret, that the arguments which he had the honour to allege this morning in conversation with your excellency, have been insufficient to induce the government of Baden to permit the baron d'Ende, chamberlain of his royal highness the grand duke, to proceed to London.
Under these circumstances, it becomes the duty of the undersigned to fulfil the further instructions of his government, by representing officially to your excellency the reasons which induce him, however reluctantly, to renew a demand which has not met with the concurrence of the court of Baden.
The British government is fully sensible of the respect due to the law and practice of other states; it fully appreciates the repugnance which his royal highness the grand duke has felt to the details of his court being made matter of public investigation; and in proof of this, it may be permitted to the undersigned to recall to your excellency, that, upon a previous occasion, when he had requested the attendance of a fourrier of the court as a witness against the Queen, he readily desisted from the application, as soon as he was made acquainted with the sentiments and determination of his royal highness upon this subject. If he now pursues a
963
The witness in question is represented to be essential to the defence of the Queen. The rights of hospitality will not be violated by his appearance; on the contrary, these seem to require, that the grand duke should contribute to the vindication of the guest of his court.
The permission which is demanded is still more essential to the character of the British government.
With whatever good faith it may act, it will not escape the attacks of malevolence, unless its demand is granted; and your excellency will not have failed to remark, that in this affair it is not sufficient to act with the most perfect purity and good faith, it is also necessary that these should be made undeniably evident to the eyes of the whole world.
The undersigned trusts that these considerations may be of weight enough to induce the government of Baden to change its present determination.
His own character for impartiality, and that of the British government for sincerity and good faith, are equally at stake.
The magnitude of these interests must justify the undersigned for persisting in an application which could, under no other circumstances, have received the sanction of the British government. The undersigned has the honour, &c.
Carlsruhe, (Signed) F. LAMB.
Oct. 11th, 1820.
To his Excellency the Baron de Berstett, &c.
NOTE
from Baron de Berstett to Mr. Lamb, dated Carlsruhe, Oct.
Sir,—In reply to the note which your excellency was pleased to address to me on the 11th inst., and in reference to the conversation which I had the honour to hold with you on the same day, I find it necessary in the first place to correct a most material mistake which appears to have crept into our communications.
The object of the propositions made to mc verbally by your excellency appeared to me to be, that the grand duke, my august master, should give to baron d'Ende not only his permission, but his orders, to proceed to England; to which I had the honour to remark, that I knew too well the fixed determination of his royal highness, never to take part directly in any thing which might relate to the solemn proceeding at this time before the tribunal of the House of Peers in England, to dare to propose to him to give any such orders to a person belonging to his court. Your excellency will recollect, that when, some time ago, you requested me to obtain permission for one of the fourriers of the court to proceed to England as a witness against the Queen, I was under the necessity of declaring to you, that I could never obtain any such permission from his royal highness.
964
If any agents of the British government have succeeded in inducing subjects of the grand duke to proceed of their own accord to England, I have to remark to your excellency, that this could never have occurred except in the case of private individuals, not being in the service of the court, or in any official situation, and to whom nothing but a passport from the police is requisite to enable them to proceed wherever they might wish without the government ever having to take notice of such a circumstance.
I hope that your excellency will find in this exposition of facts relating to this object of your mission, the most convincing proofs of the impartiality and justice which have guided, and will ever guide, the conduct of my government on this subject. But as your excellency is nevertheless pleased to persist in your demand, that baron d'Ende should at least not be prevented by a refusal of leave of absence from proceeding to England, in the event of his consenting to undertake this journey; and as your excellency assures me that this witness is deemed to be essential to the defence of her majesty the Queen, his royal highness has ordered me to address immediately to baron d'Ende the letter, a copy of which is annexed, by which that gentleman is left entirely at liberty to act according to his own wishes.
If baron d'Ende's reply, which I transmit in original to your excellency, does not answer your expectations, your excellency will at least see by this last step, taken by my master's orders, that his royal highness, faithful to the principles he has laid down, has had no wish to hinder monsieur d'Ende from acting on this occasion according to his own freewill.
I beg your excellency to accept the expressions of my high consideration.
(Signed) The Baron DE BERSTETT.
Carlsruhe, 13th Oct., 1820.
To his Excellency Mr. Lamb, &c.
NOTE
from Baron de Berstett to Baron d'Ende, dated Carlsruhe Oct.
Sir,—One of the Queen of England's counsel having asserted in the House of Peers, that after receiving two letters, written in her majesty's own hand, with the view of inducing you to repair to England to give evidence in her favour, you had, with tears in your eyes, refused to accept the invitation given to you for that purpose by one of her majesty's agents, alleging that an express prohibition from your sovereign rendered it impossible for you to undertake such a journey.
Mr. Lamb, his Britannic majesty's plenipotentiary to the Germanic confederation, has, in consequence, been directed by his government to proceed thither, in order to take all necessary steps for prevailing on his royal highness to remove the obstacles which, it would seem, prevent your compliance with the request of her majesty the Queen of England.
965
This minister having acquainted me with the purport of his mission, I have laid it before the grand duke, and his royal highness has commanded me, Sir, officially to inform you, that you were perfectly at liberty to act, on the present occasion, as you should think proper, and that, although his royal highness would never, nor in any manner, interfere in whatever might relate to the proceedings against the Queen of England, he, nevertheless, was ready to give you leave, on your making such a request, to proceed either to England, or to any other country which you might wish to visit.
The case in question being of extreme delicacy, I am directed by the grand duke to request you will return a written answer to the communication which I have the honour of addressing to you.
Accept, sir, the assurance of my most distinguished consideration.
(Signed) The Baron DE BERSTETT, Carlsruhe, Oct. 11, 1320.
To Baron d'Ende, one of his royal highness the Grand Duke of Baden's chamlains, &c. and master of the ceremonies.
NOTE
from Baron d'Ende to Baron de Berstett, dated Carlsruhe, Oct.
th,
Monsieur le Baron;—I have just received the letter which your excellency has done me the honour to address to me, and by which you are so good' as to inform me, "that one of the counsel for her majesty the Queen of England, has complained in the House of Lords, that, after receiving two letters which her majesty had deigned to address to me, requesting my evidence, I had refused to proceed to London, in consequence of a prohibition on the part of my sovereign; that in consequence of this statement, Mr. Lamb, his Britannic majesty's minister plenipotentiary to the Germanic confederation, has been instructed to repair hither for the purpose of removing any obstacle which, might arise to my departure; and that his royal highness the grand duke, has instructed your excellency to declare to me, officially, that I am perfectly at liberty to follow my inclination, and that his royal highness, upon my request, will not refuse a leave of absence for proceeding to England."
I beg leave in the first place to be allowed to correct some mistakes which appear to have crept into the allegations of her majesty's counsel. I have only been honoured with one letter from her majesty, a letter which has been delivered to me by her agent, M. Leman, to which I have replied, that the nature of my duties rendered it impossible for me to come to England, in compliance with her majesty's wishes. With respect to the tears with which I am stated to have accompanied this refusal, I am the more astonished, as my declaration was conveyed to M. Le-
966
In consequence of the permission which your excellency has done mc the honour to transmit to me in the name of his royal highness the grand duke, the difficulty grounded on the nature of my duties is overcome; I am extremely grieved that it is, nevertheless, not in my power to conform to the wishes of her majesty the Queen. The slate of my health is such that I could not undertake so long a journey without the greatest danger, particularly at this moment, when about to undergo a rigid course of medical treatment. Have the goodness, Sir, to explain these circumstances to Mr. Lamb, and to convey to him my regret at not being able to proceed to England.
I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
(Signed) The Baron D'ENDE.
Carlsruhe, Oct. 11th, 1820.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, October 23.
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.
967
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
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,
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."
969
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
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 General
stated, 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. Brougham
begged 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
primâ facie
Mr. Attorney General
said, 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
Mr. Solicitor General
contended, 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. Brougham
said, 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
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
*
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,
*
3. Viene conccsso questo medesimo van-taggio al Sig'
*
4. Solamente personale sara quest' Onore per lei, Sig' Giuseppe Hownam, Capitano della Real Marina Inglese, e
*
5. La Croce sara portata dal Gran Maestro al Collo, e gli altri Sig
*
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-
*
974
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 Chancellor
said, that it was the opinion of the House the paper tendered could not be given in evidence.
Then Lieutenant Joseph Robert Hownam
was again called in, and farther examined as follows, by the Attorney General.
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
CAROLINE, Principessa di Galles.
Co
lo
Ba
no
ro
Per il Sig'
*
*
Mr. Denman
stated, 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.
Then Louisa Demont
was again called in. and farther examined by the Lords, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario, the questions being suggested by Mr. Williams:
*
976
977
978
Lord Chancellor
979
980
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.
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 Chancellor
directed that part of her former evidence to be read. It was as follows:
981
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.
Mr. Brougham
said, 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 General
apprehended 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
Mr. Brougham
observed, 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.
Then Fanchette Martigner
was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Williams as follows, through the interpretation of Mr. Pinario:
Mr. Attorney General
put it to their lordships, whether, if the object of calling this witness was to affect the credit of Demont,
983
Mr. Brougham
stated, 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 Solicitor General
observed, that this answer referred solely to the conduct of the princess towards Pergami.
984
Mr. Williams
said, 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 Erskine
contended, 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 Lauderdale
objected 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 Erskine
retorted, 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 Chancellor
said, 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
femme libertine et galante:
985
Mr. Solicitor General.
986
987
988
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Williams.
989
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.
A Peer.
—From your knowledge of Demont, was she a person to whose word you would trust?
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.
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
Then James Leman
was again called in, and further examined by Mr. Tindal, as follows:
991
992
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.
The Question was withdrawn.
Earl of Darnley.
—Did baron d'Ende appear to you, when you saw him, to be in per-
993
Mr. Brougham
addressed 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
bonâ fide
995
*
*
996
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
*
997
"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.
Lord Holland
said, 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.
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.
998
Mr. Attorney General
—
999
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
—
1000
1001
Mr. Brougham;
—
1002
Against
for
1003
1004
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
1006
Mr. Denman:
—
1007
primâ facie
1008
1009
1010
Mr. Attorney General.
—
1011
1012
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
1014
1015
The Lord Chancellor
said, 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
Earl Grey
agreed, 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
Their lordships then adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, October 24, 1820.
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, &c;" and for hearing Counsel for and against the same,
Earl Grey
addressed their lordships to the following effect:—My lords, as we may now entertain a hope that we approach the termination of the proceedings which have consumed so much of our time, whether for good or for evil, this is not the proper opportunity for remarking, I think it right to call your lordships' attention to a point which I propose to bring under your consideration at the most convenient period for that purpose, which will probably be immediately after the conclusion of the case. If your lordships will refer to the 373rd page of Phillipps's "Law of Evidence," you will there find the following passage:—"As informations, when judicially and regularly taken, are evidence against the prisoner, if the informant dies before the trial; so, on the other hand, where the informant himself gives evidence, the informations may be used on the part of the prisoner, to contradict his testimony. One of the objects of the legislature in passing the statutes, was, to enable the judge and jury, before whom the prisoner is tried, to see whether the witnesses at the trial are consistent with the account given by them before the committing magistrate. Thus, it was admitted in lord Strafford's case, that the depositions of a witness, taken before a justice of the peace, might be
1018
vivâ voce
1019
The Lord Chancellor.
—When your lordships separated yesterday, a question had arisen as to an application made by the attorney general to stay proceedings in the important case before us. Your lordships determined that you would take until this morning to consider the subject. With a view to forming my own individual opinion on the question, which opinion I am now about to state to your lordships, I have read through the whole of the Minutes of Evidence as far as they relate to colonel Browne. In the first place, I repeat that which I yesterday said, that the attorney general could do no other than prefer the request which he preferred to your lordships, and that if he had not done so, he would not have done his duty. In the second place, I also certainly think, that it was exceedingly right and proper on the part of the counsel for her majesty to resist the application so made. My lords, it has been my endeavour, since we separated, attentively to consider the evidence in question, simply and purely with reference to what is required by justice. My own individual opinion is, and it is the opinion by which I shall of course be myself governed, that considerations of justice do not require the delay that is sought from us. The grounds on which I have formed this opinion are these. Referring to all the evidenced support of the bill on the Minutes which relates to colonel Browne, and looking merely at the matter of that evidence, I do not think that we should do justice if we stayed our proceedings. But, in addition to the opinion, that the matter of that evidence does not warrant our staying proceedings, I am also of opinion, that if the matter of that evidence did make it fit that colonel Browne, should be called to the bar, yet, recollecting, that that evidence was given two months ago, it appears to me, that it would not be doing justice to her majesty, even, as I have said, if the matter of the evidence were not that which I consider it to be, to con-
1020
The Earl of Darnley
perfectly concurred with the noble and learned lord. If the proceeding were to go on at all, the opinion which that noble and learned lord had adopted on the particular point at issue, was certainly the one most consistent with justice. He repeated, that if the proceedings were to go on at all, the proposition made by the noble and learned lord was indisputably that which their lordships ought to adopt. But what he had risen for was, to state his astonishment with reference to the particular part of the evidence to which the noble and learned lord had alluded, that no individual, even on the ministerial side of the House, and he in his conscience believed, that there were many individuals on that side of the House who agreed in opinion with him on the subject, had risen and proposed an immediate termination of the business. He would take the present opportunity of entering his solemn protest against any further proceeding, on three grounds, any one of which, if their lordships were really determined to do that substantial justice of which the country had heard so much, ought, in his opinion, 4o induce them to
1021
Marquis Camden
concurred with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, that under all the circumstances of the case, the House ought not to adjourn. He had thought it his duty, from his having had the honour to form an acquaintance with colonel Browne, to look carefully into all the evidence that affected his character; and having done this, though he thought it very hard upon colonel Browne to be denied an opportunity of vindicating his character before that assembly he could come to no other conclusion; and, in his judgment the House could pursue no other course, than that which had been recommended to them this day. He was the more confirmed in this opinion, as he understood, from what had passed in some of the discussions which had taken place, when several attacks were made on colonel Browne, that at some future time an inquiry could take place into the facts charged against that individual. For colonel Browne, he must say, that he knew him to be a gallant officer, and an honourable man. He had seen a great deal of service, had been 14 years a subaltern, and had been wounded in action not fewer than six or seven times.
Lord Holland
thought nothing could be more clear than this, that the proceedings ought not to be suspended on account of colonel Browne. He must also say, that he could not consider it proper that their lordships' should enter into any discussion on colonel Browne's merits. Colonel Browne might be a very deserving officer; but if it were right for any noble lord to pronounce a long panegyric on his services, it might be permitted to another to state what he thought of the conduct of colonel Browne in certain transactions as they stood on their lordships' Journals.
1022
Thomas Briggs
1023
Brougham
1024
1025
Mr. Attorney General
Lords
Earl of Morley.
—When the conversation took place between yourself and lieutenant Hownam, did any thing pass which indicated the period or place at which Pergami first dined with her royal highness? No.
Earl of Darlington.
—You were understood to say, you had kept no memorandum of the conversation that passed at that period between you and lieutenant Hownam; you were also understood to say it was in the month of November in the year 1815, being now five years since the conversation passed; have the goodness to say whether you think that you can recollect private conversations that have passed five years since, common conversations between you and another? Generally speaking, I cannot; but I have a perfect remembrance of that, from the circumstance of having called his attention to what captain Pechell had told me.
Earl of Morley.
—Did lieutenant Hownam or not state to you, that the first time at which Pergami dined at the table of her royal highnes, it arose from circumstances that occurred accidentally at the moment, or in consequence of the previous arrangement? I understood him to be giving an answer to a question I had asked him, and I understood it to have happened on the day the change took place from his being a servant to becoming a companion.
1026
Mr. Attorney General
stated, that as the case now stood, he should not trouble the House with any more witnesses.
Mr. Brougham
stated, that it naturally arose for him to say, whether he had any evidence in rejoinder to give in this case, to rebut any thing which had now been proved, and that under the circumstances in which he was now placed, he had no evidence to tender.
The Duke of Somerset
expressed a wish, before the counsel for the Queen summed-up, that he might be allowed to recall lieutenant Hownam.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that as this might be opening a wide field of inquiry, it would be well if the noble duke would state the reasons on which he grounded his proposition.
The Duke of Somerset
said, that the purpose for which he wished Mr. Hownam to be recalled was, to examine him more particularly as to the incident of the tent on board the polacre. He thought that he might possibly be able to explain the arrangements in the interior of the tent, in a clearer manner than had been yet done.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had not the slightest objection to lieut. Hownam's being recalled, nor would he now enter into any argument with reference to the right of noble lords to recall him. He wished, however, to call their attention to what this new re-examination must naturally lead. If one witness were recalled, to state more particularly any minor facts, all the witnesses might be recalled for the same purpose; and yet, if they were all to be recalled, their authority would be no greater than it was before. He begged leave, therefore, to suggest to the noble duke that it would be better, both for the sake of convenience and of regularity, that the examinations which had been closed, should rest where they did at present.
The Marquis of Lansdown
perfectly concurred in the observations of lord Liverpool. If the proposed course were to be pursued, every witness might be recalled who had not clearly and conclusively established any particular fact to which he had been interrogated. He was sure the noble duke would abstain from a course which might be productive of such inconvenience.
The Duke of Somerset
did not wish to
1027
Earl Grosvenor
, for the same prudential reasons, declined making a similar application for the like object.
The Lord Chancellor
asked, whether her majesty's counsel were ready to proceed in summing up the case?
Mr. Brougham
answered, that he understood from his learned friend, Mr. Denman, that he was now ready to proceed, in order to save the time of their lordships.
SUMMING UP.
Mr. Denman
then proceeded to sum up the Evidence on behalf of her majesty, as follows:—
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
*
*
1036
1037
1038
1039
*
*
1040
"Calumniando semper aliquid erat"
*
*
† Ibid. p. 1349.
1041
*
*
1042
*
*
† Ibid, p. 333, and p. 347.
‡ Ibid, p. 406.
1043
*
*
† Ibid, p. 363. ‡ See Vol. 2, p. 808.
§ Ibid, p. 1118.
1044
*
*
1045
1046
*
*
1047
*
*
1048
*
*
1049
*
*
1050
1051
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 808.
‡ Ibid, p. 807.
1052
*
primâ facie
*
1053
*
*
† See p. 498 of the present Volume.
‡ See Vol. 2, p. 814. See p. p. 426, and 497, of the present Volume.
1054
"Non mi ricordo,"
non mi ricordos
non so:'
'piu no:'
'non mi ricordo;'
*
*
1055
*
*
1056
*
*
1057
corpus delicti
1058
1059
*
*
1060
1061
1062
versus
l
1063
1064
1065
*
*
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
*
The Earl of Lauderdale.
—My lords, if it should be the wish of the learned counsel to retire during the course of the morning, probably this would be as convenient a season as any.
The Lord Chancellor.
—Certainly, Mr. Denman, it must be the wish of every noble lord that you should have an opportunity of delivering your self in a mode most consistent with your own convenience, and with the reservation of your strength. If
*
† See p. 500 of the present Volume.
1073
Mr. Deuman.
—If your lordship pleases, for about half an hour.
1074
bonâ fide
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
primâ facie
1080
1081
1082
cedunt arma togœ
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
My lords;
1094
1095
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, October 25, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading or the Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive "her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, "&c."; and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; the Counsel were accordingly called in. Then,
Mr. Denman
resumed—
1096
*
*
† See p. 344 of the present volume.
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
*
*
†See Vol. 2, p. 903.
1104
*
*
1105
*
1106
*
*
1107
*
*
1108
*
*
1109
*
*
1110
*
*
1111
primâ facie
1112
*
*
1113
*
*
1114
1115
*
*
1116
*
*
1117
1118
1119
1120
*
*
*
1121
1122
*
*
†Ibid, p. 1271.
1123
1124
*
1125
*
*
1126
1127
*
*
*
†See p. 938 of the present Volume.
1128
*
*
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
*
*
1134
ex-parte
*
*
1135
toi
tutoyé
1136
*
*
†See Vol. 2, p. 1316.
1137
1138
*
*
† Ibid, p. 937.
1139
1140
membrum virile,
1141
*
*
1142
*
1143
*
*
*
† See p. 511 of the present Volume.
1144
*
*
1145
*
*
1146
*
*
1147
*
*
1148
1149
*
*
1150
*
*
† See Vol.2, p. 1264.
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
The Earl of Darlington
.—If Mr. Denman wishes to withdraw, perhaps this would be a convenient time.
Mr. Denman
.—If your lordships will indulge me with half an hour—I will not be quite so long.
1157
*
*
1158
1159
*
*
1160
*
*
1161
*
*
1162
1163
1164
Earl of Darnley
.—What is the paper?
Mr. Denman
—The "Morning Post." Now, my lords, upon the subject of this Milan commission—supposing there had been a disposition to get evidence at all risks, and at any price, would it have been possible to resort to better agents for the purpose, than the discarded servants of her royal highness—those who had been discharged from her service by the individual charged with her—and those who would bear malice against her as well as that individual? Would it have been possible to resort to better agents—more active friends—than the Restellis—the Sacchis—and the Majoochis? And would it be possible to apply to a better source for confirmation, than to Demont, who had been for three years in constant attendance upon her person, in every place she visited? I think, when those great powers were spoken of, which we are in utter ignorance of, in regard to the commission, it would have been fit to take care that the commissioners should not have the power of proceeding in the way they have appeared to proceed, and that of all the persons who could be employed to get up witnesses and facts, in all the quarters to which application was made, it was quite impossible to find an individual more unfit for the object, if truth was the object, or more fit, if falsehood was the object, than Restelli, whose absence we have so much reason to deplore. When he comes, with new witnesses and new information—when he has recruited a new set of spies and informers and traitors, ready to depose to any thing—how different will be our state to that which it
1165
1166
*
*
1167
*
*
1168
1169
1170
1171
protégé
1172
1173
bonâ fide
1174
1175
1176
primâ facie
primâ facie
1177
primâ facie
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
"In this glorious and well-foughten field
"We kept together in our chivalry:"—
"He who the sword of Heaven would bear,
"Should be as holy as severe:"—
After a short pause,
Mr. Brougham
said, that he should now consider the case on the part of her majesty closed, if the attorney-general did not intend to reply by more than one counsel. If he did, he should beg till to-
1185
The Attorney General
said, that it was his intention to avail himself of the assistance of his learned friend, the solicitor-general, to which he was fully entitled, as his learned friends had both spoken in opening their case.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was the rule to hear two counsel on the respective sides, and that one party, by waving his claim, did not deprive the other of his right.
Mr. Brougham
said, that as the attorney-general did not mean this privilege, Dr. Lushington would address their lordships to-morrow morning.
The House then adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, October 26.
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 Eliza"beth, &c."; and for hearing counsel for and against the same: The Counsel were accordingly called in. Then,
Dr. Lushington
addressed their lordships as follows:
1186
1187
1188
1189
v.
1190
v.
1191
1192
1193
*
*
1194
1195
1196
*
*
1197
1198
*
*
† See p. 425 of the present Volume.
1199
*
*
† See p. 512 of the present Volume.
‡ Ibid, p. 920.
1200
1201
*
*
1202
1203
*
*
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
*
*
1210
primâ facie
1211
1212
1213
*
*
1214
1215
The Earl of Liverpool.
—Would Dr. Lushington wish for an opportunity of refreshment.
Dr. Lushington.
—A little time, if your lordships please.
1216
1217
1218
*
1219
1220
1221
*
*
1222
*
*
1223
1224
1225
1226
*
*
1227
1228
*
*
1229
*
propriâ personâ;
*
1230
*
1231
*
1232
*
*
*
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
bonâ fide
Mr. Brougham.
—My lords, I here close the Defence of her Majesty.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, October 27, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the
1239
Mr. Attorney General
was heard in Reply, as follows:—
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
*
*
1248
1249
*
*
† See p. 409, of the present Volume.
1250
*
*
1251
1252
1253
*
*
† See pp. 347 and 361 of the present Volume.
1254
Mr. Denman
.—How does that appear?
Mr. Attorney General
.—I will show your lordships how that fact is proved by Dr. Holland. I thank my learned friend for interrupting me, if he thinks I misstate. I should despise myself, if I could wilfully misstate—I feel it my duty only to bring the facts before you, as I conceive they are proved. I say the case is not, that her majesty went to a masquerade, or went disguised, but that she went to that masquerade, accompanied by Demont and Bergami, instead of being accompanied by the gentlemen or ladies of her suite. My lords, Demont proves that case; she states the dress her majesty wore, and the way in which she went. I am told there is nothing in her majesty's going in a rainy night across the garden, and then in a hired carriage, instead of in her own carriage, and accompanied by her own suite—but what does Dr. Holland state? He states in p. 611, "Were you ever at a masquerade at the Theatre San Carlos when her royal highness was there? I was. With whom did she go there? I was not aware till the following morning that her royal highness had been there.
Mr. Denman
.—How does it appear that that was the same night?
Mr. Attorney General
.—"Did you remain there during the whole or nearly the whole of the performance? Only about an hour, as far as I can recollect; certainly a short time."—"Are you to be understood that you do not know with whom her royal highness went to the theatre that evening?" "I do not."
*
*
1255
fille de chambre
*
*
1256
1257
1258
*
*
1259
à boire, madame
*
*
1260
non mi ricordos
1261
1262
Mr. Denman
.—Quite the contrary, indeed.
Mr. Attorney General
.—I am told he expressly said the contrary, therefore I will refer to it, at page 13. "Did you wait upon them at breakfast? Sometimes I did; sometimes I did not." "When you did not, who did wait? Either Louis Pergami or Camera."
*
*
1263
1264
1265
this
1266
*
*
1267
1268
*
*
1269
*
*
1270
1271
1272
1273
non mi ricordos
Earl of Lauderdale
.—Perhaps this will be as convenient a time as any, if the learned counsel wishes for a short interval.
Mr. Attorney General
.—If your lord ships please.
Mr. Denman
.—Before your lordships separate, will you allow Mr. Brougham to be sent for? He has an application to make to your lordships, which he thinks it essential to make at this moment.
Mr. Brougham
.—My lords, I should think I did not discharge my duty, if I delayed one moment longer than the necessity of the case required, stating to your lordships, that while my learned friend, the attorney-general, has been engaged in his able argument, a most important communication has been made to me. My lords, I have no right, certainly, to produce evidence, but I have letters, original letters, in the hand-writing of the baron Ompteda, signed by him, "Ompteda, Ministre d'Hanover,"—proving him to have been, at the date of those letters, in correspondence with the household of her majesty, attempting to seduce them, looking out for individuals to seduce, and among others, Mariette Bron;—and that I may answer to the question, Why do you not call Mariette Bron? My lords,
1274
Mr. Attorney General
.—My lords; in the first place, they are not evidence, and, in the next place, there never was an application attempted to be made at such a period of the case.
The Earl of Liverpool
.—My lords, I was as much taken by surprise as any of your lordships; at all events, this certainly is not the period to produce them.
Mr. Brougham
.—My lords, I thought it my duty, immediately on receiving them, to communicate them to your lordships, lest it should be attributed to me that I kept them back—it is important, as showing that I was right in my suspicions as to Mariette Bron.
[The House adjourned during pleasure.—When the House was resumed, the Attorney General proceeded as follows:—]
Mr. Attorney General
.—My lords; it is not my intention to be diverted from the course of observations I was pursuing, when last I had the pleasure of addressing your lordships, by one of the most extraordinary applications that I believe was ever before heard in a court of justice, and in the middle of a reply. I shall have occasion to observe upon that, in another part of the observations which I have to make to your lordships; but I shall now pursue the evidence where I was interrupted by the indulgence which your lordships have been kind enough to grant me.
1275
*
*
† See p. 1023 of the present Volume.
1276
*
*
1277
Moncœur, mon ami;
1278
1279
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1203.
1280
1281
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1138.
1282
1283
1284
1285
*
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 820.
1286
non mi ricordo
*
*
1287
1288
1289
1290
l
l
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
non mi ricordos
non mi ricordo
non mi ricordos
1301
1302
non mi ricordo
*
*
1303
*
*
1304
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Earl Grey
stated, in explanation, that it was his lordship who had moved to have the examination of sir John Beresford, not to support or contradict Carrington, but to ascertain the truth; and in which motion the House had concurred.
The Counsel were again called in, and
Mr. Attorney General
proceeded as follows:—
1305
*
Lord Chancellor
.—Have you done with that part of the case.
Mr. Attorney General
.—Yes, my lord, I was going to another part of the case.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, October 28, 1820.
Mr. Attorney General
continued:—
*
1306
1307
*
*
1308
*
*
1309
1310
*
† See p. 528 of the present Volume.
‡ See p. 939 of the present Volume.
1311
*
*
1312
Mr. Denman
—She had sat upon the bed.
Mr. Attorney General
—I was going to observe upon that. It appears that the princess was sitting upon the bed at the time she entered: "I saw she had jumped up"—it is obvious that that must mean, that she jumped up in consequence of the surprise occasioned by the entrance of the chambermaid. Could you see whether Pergami had his clothes on or off?" "I could not see that; but I had seen as much in the moment I entered as that the arm was white; I had seen that Pergami had his arm round the neck of the princess; and when I entered, the princess let the arm fall."
*
*
1313
*
*
† See p. 550 of the present Volume.
1314
1315
1316
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1081.
1317
1318
1319
*
*
1320
*
*
1321
*
*
1322
1323
*
*
† See p. 171 of the present Volume.
1324
*
*
1325
*
*
1326
*
*
† See p. 954 of the present Volume.
1327
1328
*
*
1329
1330
1331
1332
bona fides
1333
1334
*
*
*
1335
*
*
† See p. 566 of the present Volume.
1336
*
*
1337
ergo,
1338
1339
*
Mr. Denman.
—Will you point out the page in which it is said, that the Villa then belonged to Bergami?
Mr. Attorney General.
—Is there any evidence that it ever belonged to her royal highness? Pomi says, it belonged to Bergami, and was then mortgaged, and then returned to him. Is it suggested that it was ever her's? But, my lords, I care not—it was under his name—he appears to have the property in that place,
*
1340
1341
1342
Lord Chancellor.
—Would you wish for any interval?
Mr. Attorney General
—No, my lords, I trust I shall finish within a reasonable time. The first witness called to grace the cause, was Mr. St. Leger. He proves only that be was chamberlain, and retired from her royal highness at Brunswick. Upon the evidence of lord Guildford, and lady Charlotte Lindsay, I have already made my comment. What is it they are to prove? They are to support the character of her royal highness, lady Charlotte to speak to four and twenty days, lord Guildford to dining with her at Naples, at Leghorn, and at the Villa d'Este. They are called to give a species of evidence to character. Lord Glenbervie to his dining with her at Genoa and seeing nothing improper. Lord Llandaff is called to prove the dining at Naples, and he certainly does prove an extraordinary fact, that he did distinguish Bergami from the other servants at Naples, and he afterwards dined with her royal highness at Rome. But he is called to endeavour to prove what lawyers call "the custom of the country," with respect to gentlemen visiting ladies in their bed-rooms; but my learned friend finding he could not prove "the custom of the country," his lordship was requested to prove what he himself had done in Italy. Your lordships recollect it excited rather a smile. His answer was, that he had seen many ladies in bed in a morning; and this is to be good evidence to prove that there is no indecency in having a man in a lady's bed-room at night. My lord Llandaff is not questioned as to his practice upon that subject, but he is to prove, that he, a nobleman on terms of equality with those ladies, visited ladies when in bed in the presence of other persons. Is that to be an excuse for a manservant being present during the whole night in the bed-room of his mistress, and while she is attiring? If such is the conclusion to which this evidence is to lead, I think the questions had better not have been put; for your lordships will see how preposterous it is to draw conclusions from such evidence.
1343
*
*
1344
1345
*
*
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
Mr. Solicitor General
then addressed their lordships as follows:
1353
1354
1355
1356
*
Sir W. Gell
is called, my lords, to speak to the same subject. Sir W. Gell had seen him upon many occasions. On sir W. Gell's evidence I shall make no particular comment; but it appears, as compared with the evidence of Mr. Craven, to be rather too figurative in its style and character. He is asked, "Upon any occasion when Pergami has come to see you, or you have seen him, when the Queen has not been present, what has his conduct and demeanor been towards you as to manners?" "I should say, on all occasions, rather more respectful than was
*
1357
1358
1359
"——Thread-bare chastity
"Was poor in the advancement of her creatures;
"Wantonness, magnificent."
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
Mrs. Minniken."
O'Donovan.
Mrs. Minniken.
O'Donovan.
Mrs. Minniken."
1365
Mr. Denman.
—That is not so—he stated it was of his own accord he went.
Mr. Brougkam.
—Do not interrupt him
1366
Mr. Solicitor General.
—I should certainly take it as a favour of my learned friend to interrupt me whenever I misstate any fact.
Mr. Brougham.
—We shall be here till midnight.
Mr. Solicitor General.
—I have not, I conceive, mis-stated a single fact, except that I may have drawn a wrong conclusion, as to the motives for the conduct of my learned friend Mr. Brougham. My lords; having made these observations, I shall beg leave to direct your attention to what took place in embarking on board the polacre. I beg at once to come to that part—out of compliment, indeed, to my learned friends; for they tell us that that is the only rag of a case we have left. On board the polacre her royal highness embarks at Augusta. She lay in a room contiguous to the room in which Bergami slept. It is admitted, that by opening one door, they could see one another in bed; but I will go to the return voyage from Jaffa. Upon that voyage, a tent is raised upon the deck. My lords, there was some dispute about the size, and the character of that tent. Mr. Hownam swears it was about ten feet by sixteen; and if your lordships look at it when drawn by Paturzo,
*
*
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
"Oft have we found that seven-fold fence to fail,
"Though stiff with hoops, and arm'd with ribs of whale."
"The leathern outside, boisterous as it was, "Gave way, and bent beneath her strict embrace."
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
The Earl of Liverpool.
—As it is now four o'clock, probably it will be most convenient to your lordships to adjourn.
Mr. Brougham
said, he was convinced his learned friend, the solicitor-general, did not intend to say any thing harsh or unpleasant to him, but he had been instructed to insinuate, that he (Mr. B.) had so far trifled with their lordships, as to have brought out those two letters which he had Rendered yesterday, after having them a long time in his possession. He was the more certain that his learned friend was merely instructed to state this fact, not only from his learned friends personal kindness towards him, but because he knew that some of his sagacious instructors had been industriously buzzing it about, that he had had those papers long in his possession. He now asserted that he had no knowledge of the existence of those letters before half-past eleven o'clock yesterday; but he was wrong in supposing that they only reached London yesterday. The person who brought them, arrived with them in London about half-past eleven the night before—an hour too late to go round with the letter, even if he had immediately received it, to their lordships several residencies. This fact might be proved by a reference to the Alien-office. He hoped this explanation would be taken as a true statement of facts, and that those who had dared to
1384
The Solicitor General
assured his learned friend, that he meant nothing personal to him, and that he gave him full credit for the statement he had just made.
Mr. Brougham
was satisfied with his learned friend's assurance; indeed, he did not mean to ascribe to those who had instructed his learned friend any motives of personal hostility towards him. They no doubt thought the artifice they imputed to him one which they would have used as a perfectly fair one.
The House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, October 30, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An "Act to deprive her Majesty Caroline "Amelia Elizabeth, &c." the Counsel were called in. Then
Mr. Solicitor General
resumed—
1385
1386
1387
Mr. Denman
.—You had better read the evidence from which that appears.
Mr. Solicitor General
.—My lords, my learned friends desire me to read the evidence. "Did he afterwards return the bottle to her royal highness?" "I cannot be positive. I fancy that he returned the bottle; but I cannot be positive. Whether he returned the bottle to the carriage or not, or whether he threw the bottle away I cannot be certain."—"To the best of your recollection, which way was it? Did he return the bottle, or did he throw it away?" "I rather think that he returned the bottle to the carriage." Can your lordships, then, entertain any doubt as to that having been the fact? And am I not justified, therefore, in calling upon your lordships to draw from that extraordinary circumstance the inference of a connection of the most extraordinary kind, existing at that time between her royal highness and Bergami?
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
Mr. Denman
.—Where is that?—It is to the contrary, indeed.
Mr. Solicitor General
.—This is the passage—"Did you ever see the baron Ompteda?" "I do not remember the name."—"Did you ever, during the year after the long voyage, see a German baron at the Villa d'Este?" "In the house Villani, I saw him. He was a Prussian." It is quite clear he was speaking of the baron Ompteda, and no other person.
1396
1397
1398
1399
"Non mi recordo"
"non mi sovviene,"
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
v.
1405
1406
1407
1408
dared,
1409
1410
none
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
Mr. Denman
.—It is not the same night.
Mr. Solicitor General
.—It is most positively sworn to be the same night. I beg leave, then, to recall your recollection to what took place in the morning. The usual time for retiring from that apartment was nine o'clock. Demont remained till ten; and before she retired, her royal highness came out of the room occupied by Bergami, with her two pillows, for the purpose of passing to her own room. The moment she saw Demont, she started, said nothing, but passed on. Now, my lords, if that circumstance be true, can any person for a
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
*
*
1422
*
*
1423
1424
Mr. Denman
.—He does not say "by accident."
Mr. Solicitor General
.—I say, he tells us so in his cross-examination: "Did you meet him by accident?" "By accident. I did not know him; he stopped me." When he told you to go to Vimercati, you being the servant of Codazzi, did you not ask him what his name was, and who he was?" "I asked him, and he told me that it was no business of mine."—"Did you meet him by accident on the second day?"—"Yes." And this man whom he did not know, whom he had thus met by accident the second time, persuades him to go to Vimercati. My lords, he goes to Vimercati, and according to his account, Vimercati persuades him to deliver to him papers belonging to her royal highness. He pays him for those papers, and he goes on delivering successive parcels of papers till the month of November in the same year. My lords, he says, that at the end of that year, or at the commencement of the next, he repented of what he had done; he had been seduced by those persons to hand over those papers, and to betray the confidence of his employer; for he describes
1425
1426
1427
1428
"——dum Capitolio,
Regina dementes ruinas,
Funus et imperio parabat—"
1429
After a short pause,
Mr. Brougham
said, that he wished to call their lordships attention to a matter which he mentioned a day or two ago. He had on that occasion stated, that some papers of importance had just reached him, which he had at once felt it his duty to lay before their lordships; indeed, he felt it would be a dereliction of duty in him to allow their lordships to go to judgment without puling them in possession of these papers. It appeared to him, that there were two points of view in which such evidence was admissible. He was certain that in any ordinary case, no judge would hold that, before final judgment was given, it was too late for a defendant to obtain justice; he was convinced that such evidence as that which he was about to offer, would be received in the courts below, open certainly to cross-examination, to a rebutter, and to all the comments of the prosecutor. But, was it not more necessary that such evidence should be received in such a case as this? He would call their lordships' attention to the reasons, why it was material that this evidence should be received. First, it brought home distinctly
1430
1431
The Attorney-General
said, he objected to his learned friend's proceeding further. Had he the talent, eloquence, or nerve of his learned friend, he might well turn round, and with a bursting exclamation say, "And now, my lords, I ask whether you are a court of justice?" If his learned friend's object was merely to make a speech, he would have avoided, not only the letters, but all comments on what had been said in reply. The letters had been produced when he was in the course of his reply, land when his learned friend knew that they could not be received in evidence. If the letters were of importance to the defence, their lordships might perhaps be inclined to relax the strict rules of evidence in favour of the accused, but he denied that it could be done in this case. The object was, to establish the proposed agency, and then to show the conduct of the party under that agency. But the declaration of the party could not be received to prove this, neither could the written declaration of such agent. His learned friend had accused baron Ompteda; and now it turned out, that the accusation was without proof; for no proof was attempted to be offered against Ompteda until this moment. It was not until he had complained of this accusation without proof, that the letters in question had found their way into the hands of his learned friend. Then it was that his learned friend came forward and said, "Oh, I have got letters of the greatest importance, which I wish to lay before your lordships." He contended that those letters could not be received. His learned friend had ingeniously contrived to state the contents of the letters, but he had not said to whom they were addressed, nor had he mentioned their dates.
Mr. Brougham
.—My lords; I have not the slightest objection to do both. I will read the letters throughout, if my learned friend wishes.
The Attorney General
admired the adroitness of his learned friend. He had contrived to give the contents of the letters in his own way; but he could not ac-
1432
Mr. Brougham
said, his learned friend had done him injustice in supposing that he meant to take any advantage of him. The first letter was dated the 24th Feb. 1819. The second, the 6th of March, 1819. There was also a third (which was an answer to the first), dated the 28th February. The person to whom those letters had been addressed, was a director of police at Pesaro. He was aware that he had no right to press upon their lordships any reply to, or correction of his learned friend's occasional mistakes in the course of the reply. Perhaps, too, there was another reason, namely, because he did not feel himself pressed by any necessity to do so. He contended that he had a right to produce those letters, as an answer to the question, why he did not produce certain other witnesses. He had been told that he knew the contents of the letters, or he would not have held back Mariette and Hieronimus. This he denied. He had found the activity which had been used in corrupting her royal highness's servants. He saw that they had already got four of her servants, and he knew not how far the others might have been practised upon. With respect to Mariette and Hieronimus, he said on a former occasion that he did not know but they might have been under the trammels of the Omptedas and Grimms; and now it turns out, that he was perfectly well founded in the remark. If he had, in a rash moment, called any of those persons, they might have turned round upon him; they would, in reality, be the witnesses of his learned friends, whilst they would be his only to appearance. The evidence afforded by the letters of Ompteda was a proof of the sound discretion which he and his friends had exercised on this point. His learned friend had said, that there was not a tittle of proof to show any connexion between Ompteda and the present cause, now he wanted to show that there did exist such connexion, he wanted to demonstrate the fact; Majoochi was cross-examined to show that baron Ompteda had a connexion with the case; Majoochi shuffled at the questions put to him on this head, and then he and his learned friends called witnesses to contra-
1433
1434
ex post facto
The Attorney General
put it again to their lordships, whether or not his learned friend had not offered those letters for the opportunity of making a speech in reply to the concluding addresses of the counsel for the bill? What did their lordships now hear after all, but that they were not to be guided by the ordinary rules which they had hitherto followed, but that his learned friend should be allowed to bring in any evidence which he might think material to her majesty's case, and that their lordships had no discretion but to accept it. With respect to the nature of the evidence to which his learned friend alluded, he felt no alarm; but he maintained, that if their lordships adhered to the rules they had hitherto followed, there was not a tittle of ground for admitting this evidence. He denied also, that what had been said in the evidence, with respect to Maurice Credi's begging pardon before her royal highness, was any sufficient reason for the production of those papers. As to the evidence of Carrington, he was called to contradict Majoochi; but, who ever heard, that what he said of what he heard Majoochi say respecting another could be evidence as against that other? He then submitted to their lordships that there was no just ground laid for the introduction of these letters, though, he repeated, that he was not afraid of them as affecting his case if they were produced. Their lordships, however, would be the best judges whether the papers had any material bearing on the case, and, if so, whether a just ground had been given for producing them. Was it now meant to be said, on the other side, that those letters were the reasons
1435
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that according to the practice of the courts below, after the reply was heard, the counsel on the opposite side had no right to offer any observations, except as to cases quoted. He had seen what was passing at their lordships bar, and he could state that, in an experience of 45 years, he had hardly ever seen the rule to which he had just alluded strictly observed. Counsel generally, when they replied to cases, diverged a little to the reply of the other side. He did not say that they had any right to do so; but it was generally done. As to the case here, he should remark, what he was certain would be the fact, that no attention could be paid to such observations. With reference to the request of counsel to have those papers received, he had yet to learn what connexion there was between those letters and the evidence of Credi or Majoochi. Credi was not a witness before their lordships; and as to Majoochi's declarations, they might be evidence that he said so, but they could not be evidence of the truth of what was so said. As it was, he was of opinion that they were not evidence.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that with respect to the judgment of the courts below, he would not stop to consider what evidence they would receive or reject; but he thought their lordships stood in a situation different from the courts below, and different from all other tribunals; and he thought that what they had to consider was the simple naked question, did the evidence now offered bear upon the case? did they think it of importance to the great and important cause? If they did, how could they far one instant reject it; or rejecting it, how could they talk of even-handed justice? What was the character of the proceeding before them; what was its origin; who were its instruments? Was it an English or a German proceeding? The noble earl opposite had, on a former day, boldly stept forward and avowed, that he was responsible for the measure. In the course of the proceeding of that day, it was pretty evident that, mixed up with this proceeding, there was much German agency; there appeared about it the active interference of the minister of the king of Hanover, who was also the sovereign of this country. Agents—
1436
The Duke of Hamilton
said, he would not enter into any consideration as to the technical difficulties that might stand in the way of the production of these letters. He would speak to a plain matter of fact. These letters were of a material importance to the defence of an accused party, who stood exposed to a bill of Pains and Penalties. Would they refuse to receive that evidence? If any one point in the whole case was more anxiously avoided than another, it was the Milan commission. He should have thought that the noble earl opposite would have told them that this important question should be examined with the utmost impartiality, and that he would have divested the British government of any concern in transactions which could not be referred to without pain and disapprobation. This bill of Pains and Penalties stood opposed to every principle of the British constitution. He was happy, therefore, to have that opportunity to protest against it. He did so upon the broad principle, that such a bill was subversive of the British constitution Opposed to this bill of Pains and Penalties, her majesty stood in a situation different from the situation in which other persons would have stood. If their lordships felt for her situation—if they meant to investigate the truth—if they meant to satisfy the feelings of the country, they would afford ample opportunities to her majesty to expose that conspiracy which they had so much reason to suppose existed against her. Their lordships would not do justice to the case of
1437
Earl Grey
said, he had always felt and declared that a bill of Pains and Penalties was a proceeding which nothing could justify, but a question of state necessity. Such necessity was not proved on the present occasion. Entertaining this constitutional feeling against the bill, he had stated it at an early period of the proceeding. Their lordships thought otherwise, and having agreed to proceed on this bill, they had sat there for a period of from 40 to 50 days, hearing evidence for and against it. Were they now, in the last stage of this proceeding, to depart from the rule which they had followed throughout? It was stated by a learned lord, in which he thought every body must concur, that according to the rules of law, this evidence was not admissible. The question was, was the evidence tendered, so material to their decision as to induce them to depart from the rule which they had originally made? His noble friend had said, that an inquiry into the character and conduct of the Milan commission was of great importance. He concurred with him; but the present was not the moment most convenient to institute that inquiry.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he was ready to admit that they ought, as much as possible, to adhere to the rules of evidence as followed in the courts below; but when they assumed the station of a legislative body, the object of their inquiry ought to be in the first place, to promote the cause of truth and justice. To this great object every inferior consideration ought to yield. The question before them was not a judicial, but a legislative measure; and on this ground their lordships were bound to see whether the evidence had come fairly before them, or whether corrupt and miserable arts had been employed to suborn that evidence and to pervert the ends of justice? In his opinion, their lordships were not bound down by the technical rules of law. The spirit of exalted justice alone should guide their proceedings. Proceedings in courts of law in ordinary cases had, in fact, no relation whatever to the proceedings before them. Would they stifle inquiry, where inquiry was so anxiously called for by an abused and complaining party? In his opinion, they would forget their duty if they should shrink from an inquiry necessary to the attainment of justice.
1438
Earl Grosvenor
said, he was one of those who felt that the House ought to have gone into a full inquiry on this head. But as they had not done so, he did not think that, at the present moment, they could take up the subject; the more so, because the inquiry would be of a partial and imperfect nature.
Lord Holland
suggested, that if this evidence was to be received, it would then be incumbent, on them to go further into the new inquiry which would by that means be opened. For his own part, he felt himself quite exhausted by the length to which the main investigation had already extended. His reason, however, for the vote that he should give on this question, was—and it would afford him great satisfaction to find that others were equally influenced by the same reason—that he was determined to vote against the bill itself, on principles which had often been maintained in that House on former occasions. He did think also, that no man could give an honest vote the other way, without first sifting and examining every part of the subject, and acquainting himself with the real means by which this prosecution had been set on foot. He himself, indeed, felt no desire for such an investigation; he wanted not, after so long an inquiry into the conduct of the Queen, to be led into an inquiry as to the proceedings of Hanoverian ministers. Those, however, who proposed to say content to the second reading of a bill like this, were bound to assure themselves that it had been brought forward by just, legitimate, and constitutional means.
The Marquis of Lansdown
agreed that the evidence in question was not admissible, in consequence of the rule which they had themselves previously laid down. But it was one thing to say, that the evidence in question formed no material part of the inquiry, and another to say that, in accordance with this rule, they were prevented from receiving it. Their lordships had, during the course of these proceedings, rejected evidence tendered in support of a charge of conspiracy on the one side, and were bound, therefore, to exclude it on either side. It could not be becoming to receive it at this closing stage of the general inquiry Undoubtedly, some amongst them had a deep interest in the production of this evidence, and more especially the noble earl opposite who had said, that no foreign minis-
1439
The House divided: Contents, 16; Not-contents, 145: Majority, 129. The Counsel were called in, and informed, that the Letters offered could not be received in evidence. The further consideration of the Bill was adjourned to Thursday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, November 2, 1820.
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 Ame- "lia Elizabeth, &c."
The Lord Chancellor
rose, and addressed the House as follows—
*
*
1440
1441
1442
ex parte
ex parte
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
*
*
1451
oscula
amplexus
tempus
locum
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
*
Lord Erskine
said—
*
1459
"Fiat justitia ruat cœlum."
legislative
Judicially,
1460
ex parte
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
*
*
1470
The Lord Chancellor
said, that he had, in common with their lordships, to regret the absence of his noble and learned friend, whose indisposition had compelled him to quit his seat. But he could not permit this debate to go further without observing, that his noble and learned friend had mistaken what he (the lord chancellor) meant, when he said that he had overlooked many of the points in the case. What he meant to say was merely this—that in the points and cases upon which he had remarked, he saw enough for his own judgment: as to the rest, he had left them unreasoned upon, and refrained from pronouncing any opinion with reference to them.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said
*
cramp in the stomach, which was greatly distended, and his pulse for some time had entirely ceased, until he was relieved by something administered by sir William Knighton, who happened to be present, and who kindly accompanied him home, attended by Mr. Holt of Westminster.
*
1471
1472
v.
1473
1474
1475
*
*
*
† Ibid. p. 344. ‡ Ibid. P. 331.
§ Ibid. p. 411.
║ Ibid. p. 312.
1476
*
*
† Ibid. p. 364. ‡ Ibid. p. 413.
§ Ibid. p. 405.
1477
*
*
† Ibid. p. 408.
1478
*
*
† Ibid. p. 318.
‡ Ibid. p. 336.
1479
*
*
1480
*
*
1481
*
*
† Ibid. p. 513.
1482
*
*
† Ibid p. 531.
‡ Ibid p. 310.
1483
*
*
1484
*
les petits jeux,
*
† Ibid. p. 517.
‡Ibid. p. 514.
§ Ibid. p. 310.
1485
*
*
† Ibid. p. 529.
‡ Ibid. p. 517.
1486
1487
*
*
† Ibid. p. 957.
‡ Ibid. p. 950.
1488
1489
*
*
1490
*
*
1491
1492
*
*
‡ Ibid. p. 523.—In the course of the debate, Hownam's unwillingness to state his belief, that Bergami slept under the tent, was, to a certain extent, denied; reference is, however, here given to the
1493
*
passages founded upon; besides, the argument used to show that he was not unwilling to state his belief as to this fact, in my mind, was the strongest thing of all others to prove that he was most unwilling. It was said, that even the counsel, in his examination in chief, had shown their desire, without effect, to induce him to announce his belief on this subject; now, undoubtedly, that may be urged, with justice, as proving that the counsel for her majesty were not unwilling to hear him state his belief. Yet, in so much as it proves his resistance, even to the wishes of those who called him, it seems, of all others, the statement that tends, in the strongest manner, to establish the unwillingness of the witness to disclose his belief.
*
1494
*
*
† Ibid, p. 456.
1495
1496
1497
*
*
1498
*
*
† Ibid. p. 689.
1499
she
*
*
1500
1501
double entendre,
1502
femme libertine et galante;"
*
See p. 984 of the present Volume.
† See Vol. 2, p. 1203.
1503
"Non mi recordo;"
1504
annually
1505
1506
*
*
1507
1508
1509
*
*
† See Vol. 2, p. 1266.
1510
ex parte
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
ex parte
1518
ex parte
1519
1520
The Earl of Rosebery
said, that upon a question of such great national importance as the present, inferior to none which had been agitated in parliament since the period of the Revolution, and as to which, a silent vote in many cases, and probably in his own, could not give a correct expression of the opinion formed; he felt very desirous of offering a few observations to the House.
1521
1522
1523
Lord Redesdale
said, he could not agree with the conclusion drawn by the noble earl from the evidence given in this case. He conceived, that the evidence in support of the Bill was so full and complete, that no doubt could hang upon his, or upon any other man's mind, as to the guilt of the accused party. If such evidence were to be rejected, then, he must say, that no verdict had ever been given, in any court of justice, where a contrariety of evidence appeared, that might not be challenged on the same ground: for, be believed, very few cases could be cited, in which the contrariety of evidence was not greater. He had examined the evidence most accurately, and the impression on his mind was, that this case was more fully proved than any case which he ever remembered, in which any degree of contrariety of evidence was apparent. Where any doubt or mystery hung over evidence, he had been professionally taught to use a test, which was adopted, not only here, but in every place where any thing like a due administration of justice prevailed—namely, where there was any thing doubtful in the evidence, or where it was contradicted, to try those parts on which doubt was thrown, or which were so contradicted, by the test of those facts that were unquestionably proved. When this was done, the truth was sure to be extracted. This mode he had been taught from his earliest knowledge of the profession in which he had so long been engaged; and the adoption of which in another country, where he had been employed in the administration of justice, he found to be indispensably necessary in arriving at a just decision. When he wished to ascertain the truth, be would examine contradictory evidence, in the manner be had stated; but be was convinced, that, if evidence were to be altogether rejected because some parts of it appeared discordant, efficient justice never could be done. Evidence that was contradicted he would try by the test of clear and undisputed facts—and he would then judge on which side the truth of the evidence really lay. Now, in this case, there was an abundance of undisputed facts—such an abundance, as, if duly considered, left no doubt as to the side on which the truth and weight of
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
venue
1529
1530
The House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, November 3.
The order of the day being read,
Earl Grosvenor
rose. He said, that having on this important inquiry attended to the evidence that had been given at the bar, as well as to the eloquent speeches of counsel; having also attended to the speeches of noble lords, pronounced yesterday in that House; having thus paid all the attention in his power to this most important case, he had now to declare before God and his country his solemn opinion, that any thing adduced in evidence before them, did not substantiate the cruelly accumulated charges against the Queen. In my conscience (said the noble earl), and as I hope for justice and for mercy at the bar of heaven hereafter, where we must all appear, and where we shall be judged of according to the good or evil we may do on this great occasion, I do believe that these charges have not been proved, and I must, therefore, be under the necessity of saying "Not-content" to this question [Loud cheers!]. He should, he feared, be obliged, in the course of his address, to claim a considerable portion of their lordships' time. They had heard much on the one side of the subject, and yesterday they had heard the able and elaborate speech of the learned lord on the woolsack, as well as the speech of the noble earl (Lauderdale) who had so much distinguished himself by the part which he had taken on this question, and the energy which he had manifested. Whilst on the other hand, the side of the House from whence he addressed them, had to deplore the loss of a powerful ann eloquent advocate (lord Erskine), who had been prevented from following up his speech against the bill; the sudden indisposition of that noble lord was a cause of great regret to them all, but he trusted that his indisposition would be but temporary; he hoped that he would still be able to bring to this question the aid of his powerful talents, and character. It was to be regretted, that, from the abilities which had been employ-
1531
1532
1533
double entendre
1534
1535
double entendre
1536
1537
"Good things of day begin to droop and drowze,
"And night's black agents to their work do rouse."
1538
The Earl of Harewood
said, it was not his intention to trouble their lordships by going at all into the mass of evidence which had been brought under their consideration. The situation in which he felt himself placed, was that of a member of the House of Peers, acting in the double capacity of a legislator and a judge. Considering himself as placed in that situation, he begged, before he gave his vote, to have the grounds on which he formed that vote distinctly understood. He would shortly state the impression made upon his mind by the evidence. Of that evidence he would say, that much of it had been contradicted; much stood on loose grounds; but other parts, he was sorry to say, stood on a firmer foundation. The effect of the whole was calculated to create a strong suspicion respecting the subject of their inquiry; but having stated that, he felt it necessary to consider the nature of the evidence. Far from him was the intention of adopting the prejudice out of doors, that because a person was a foreigner, he ought not to be believed on his oath. Such a prejudice was unworthy of any civilized country. But, when they found an extraordinary case built upon foreign evidence, and that obtained in an unusual manner, a certain degree of doubt was created; and the more so, because many parts of the depositions of the witnesses, he had reason to know, were not brought into the view of the House. If evidence was given on the trial of a person for events in England, they could have any doubts that had arisen cleared up in four and twenty hours. But respecting foreign evidence, a certain degree of doubt must arise in the mind. He went no further than this. He had no right to charge any witness with falsehood, unless it were proved upon him at
1539
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, that
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
Earl Grey
said:—My lords, it is with the utmost regret that I find myself compelled to differ upon this occasion from my noble friend who has just sat down, as well as from my noble friend on the cross-bench. I have been anxious to hear my noble friends, as well as other noble lords on the same side, before I rose to address you, because I know that their sentiments must have
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
v
corpus delicti
1555
1556
double entendres
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
The Earl of Liverpool
rose and said:
*
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
elevation of Bergami.
1581
except,
his wife.
1582
1583
1584
protégé,
1585
infatuated passion
infatuated passion
double entendre
double entendre
creation
opportunities
1586
1587
1588
1589
*
*
1590
The hour of four having arrived, the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, November 4, 1820.
The Earl of Liverpool
continued—
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
danger
necessity;
1597
1598
1599
tent
that must have occurred,
1600
exclusiveness,
judicial proof
1601
suspicious attachment,
infatuated passion
polacre case,
vehemently in love with
create opportunities
greatest cruelty, oppression,
injustice.
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
menial servant,
creating opportunities
1612
1613
1614
1615
triumph of guilt;
1616
1617
1618
1619
Lord Arden
said, that he wished from his heart that the bill could be withdrawn, and that some other way might be devised, in order to take the sense of the House on the question of the guilt or innocence of the Queen. As a peer of parliament, he felt it to be a duty which he owed to his king, to oppose the second reading of this bill. Its rejection would relieve his majesty from a certain degree of odium, and ministers from a heavy weight of responsibility.
Viscount Falmouth
said, it was with great unwillingness he troubled their lordships, because, unpractised as he was in that House, he was very sensible how little he was entitled to their attention. But, if he felt oppressed by this consideration earlier in the debate, how much more so must he now feel, after the brilliant display of eloquence which he had since heard, and which, he could assure the House, would have awed him into silence, if he were not sensible that he had a paramount duty to discharge? He wished he could think, that the only question to be decided by the second reading of the bill, was that of the guilt or innocence of the royal accused, because his duty would then be a more clear, though a most painful one. But there were other considerations which pressed themselves most seriously upon his mind, and impelled him, before the bill should be read a second time, to say, that after giving it all the consideration in his power, he felt a most decided objection to the divorce clause which it contained. He knew he might be told, that if he were clear as to the guilt of the Queen, it would
1620
1621
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that if the noble lord had an objection to the second reading of the bill, in case insuperable difficulties appeared to passing it without the clause of divorce—he too felt himself precisely in the same situation. He was I one of those who concurred in introducing the bill; yet he was ready to declare, without at that moment entering into the reasons on which he formed his opinion, that if the question should be put, whether the divorce clause should be retained, he would certainly vote against it.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that in the committee he should desire to be heard against the divorce clause, thinking that, on every principle, it was improper.
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that as one of those who had concurred with the secret committee in recommending a solemn inquiry—as one who had agreed that it would be best carried on in a legislative form, and that the mode of proceeding actually adopted was the most convenient—as one, also, who had supported the bill on its first reading, but who now thought it highly inexpedient and detrimental to the public interests that it should proceed any further, he felt a natural desire to state briefly the grounds of his present opinion. The learned lord on the woolsack had truly said, that no noble lord ought to vote for the second reading of the bill, who did not think that the Queen was guilty; but they would allow him to add, that it was not necessary for at those who might vote against the second reading of the bill, to think that her majesty was innocent. The same learned lord had said to that House, "Be just and fear not;"—he would allow him to add, "be politic as well as just." The noble earl at the head of the Treasury, seemed to think that their lordships had already decided on the principle of the measure, and that they had now only to vote, whether the Queen was guilty or not guilty;—that it was due to the Queen and the country to express that opinion. It had been also said, that this bill of Pains and Penalties might undergo certain modifications. Now, he would in the first place say, that he considered the solemn inquiry which had taken place, had most
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
Lord Ashburton
said, that after all that had occurred—after all the evidence and. argument that he had heard—there was
1628
ex post facto
ex post facto
l
1629
Lord Erskine
addressed their lordships from the ministerial side of the House, and said:—My lords, it is not my intention now to resume the detailed examination of the whole evidence, which I was proceeding to do when I was prevented on Thursday by a sudden indisposition [See p. 1469.] The speech of my noble friend opposite (earl Grey) which, in disregard of every risk to my health, brought me down to the House yesterday to hear it, has rendered such a course unnecessary—it would only unsettle your minds from a conviction which cannot but be impressed on them, by the admirable perspicuity with which all the facts were laid before you, and by the eloquence with which they were enforced. The speech which you have just heard from the noble earl behind me (Liverpool) I am ready to say, was the best answer which could be given to it, but to which perhaps it would be a sufficient reply, to desire you only to recall (what must so easily be brought back to your recollections), the arguments to which I have alluded. A methodical detail of the whole proofs would therefore be superfluous; and I now offer myself to your lordships rather as a kind of authority from long professional habits, than as a debater upon the evidence; omitting, however, none of the supposed facts which have been insisted on as established; submitting to you, at the same time, the principles of law, by which their truth or falsehood ought to be examined, or the consequences, if taken to be true.
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
second
on the whole matter in issue
1635
at first
then
at last
1636
"—The time has been
"That when the brains were out, the man would die,
"And there an end; but now they rise again
"With twenty mortal murders on their crowns,
"And push us from our stools."
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
nolle
1645
prosequi
Lord De Dunstanville
said, that the objections principally relied upon by the opponents of the bill were; first, that if it were passed, it would be rejected in the Commons; and, secondly, that the public mind had already decided against the measure. With respect to the first objection, he thought it should have no weight with their lordships, as it rested upon a calculation which he believed to be erroneous; and as to the second, he thought the public mind was much deceived upon this subject, through the garbled statements and inflammatory comments which had appeared in the newspapers. The public, then, could not be so competent to form a judgment upon the merits of the case as their lordships, who had been occupied for forty-five days in hearing the several witnesses, with the arguments of the counsel on both sides. The noble lord then adverted to the rapid exaltation of Bergami, who, after all the endeavours to throw a sort of credit over his origin, was clearly shown to have been a menial servant. Yet this man, from the lowest situation was raised to the highest to which the princess could elevate him, and with the most unaccountable celerity. Then was he seen surrounded by his own trusty relatives, and shut in by them from the eye of observation—Sisters, brothers, cousins, all but his wife; who was excluded, though her child, who wanted her protection, was a part of the family circle. What construction could their lordships put on these broad facts; on the suspicious condition of madame Oldi and on all the circum-
1646
Lord Manners
said, that he felt it impossible for him to give a silent vote on the present occasion. The material question for their lordships to consider was, whether the preamble of the bill, which charged the Queen with having been guilty of an adulterous intercourse, was proved. If the case, as it had been established, rested solely upon the evidence of foreigners, it had been said, that their lordships ought to hesitate before they gave implicit credit to their testimony. This doctrine he did not consider correct; for although Eng-
1647
1648
1649
The Duke of Newcastle
was anxious to
1650
The Marquis of Lansdown
observed, that he was both glad and sorry that an opportunity for explanation had been afforded to the noble duke who preceded him. He was glad that any explanation which he might have thought necessary to the justification of his own conduct should have taken place, but sorry that the explanation given, however it might justify the noble duke in his own opinion, was not of a nature to satisfy the public mind as to the propriety of his interference. Did the noble duke think that to be present during the whole of the prosecution was a mere formality which might or might not be observed, according to the inclination or convenience of the parties. The noble duke had stated, that he was prevented from attending by domestic circumstances, by circumstances connected with his own personal convenience; he had stated, that he had not heard the speeches of counsel at the bar, nor the evidence by which the case was to be supported on either side, and yet, after such admissions, the noble duke had gone on to say, that having read the evidence, he was as well prepared as if he had heard it all, not only to vote for the second reading of the bill, but for all the penalties attached to the imputed offence. No doubt the noble duke thought he was acting conscientiously; that he thought he was sufficiently informed on the subject, and was as capable of coming to a just and equitable conclusion, as those who had attended the investigation of the charges from day to day. That such was
1651
1652
gravamen
1653
1654
1655
1656
double entendre
The hour of four having arrived, their lordships adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, November 6.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
The order of the day being read,
The Marquis of Lansdown
resumed—
1657
mala fides,
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
versus
1663
1664
kvr
1665
1666
1667
buono marcato
1668
1669
"Ducitur iratis plaudendum funus amicis."
The Duke of Northumberland
said, he considered that the allegations contained in the preamble of the bill were satisfacto-
1670
Lord Howard
said, he had attended to all the different stages of this proceeding, and had concurred in the expediency of the inquiry which had taken place. Under all the circumstances which followed, however, and from the view which he took of the evidence, he did not think that the preamble of the bill had been sufficiently sustained. He considered that Majoochi, Demont, Sacchi, and Restelli, were not deserving of credit; he considered also, that other witnesses who had been called were not entitled to the fullest confidence. With these impressions, combined with the fact of Restelli having been sent out of the country—with Kress having been compelled to come over here to give evidence, while the baron d'Ende was not compelled to come—that such a taint had been thrown upon the whole case, as to render it obnoxious and unsatisfactory to the population of the country. He could not assent to this bill unless the charges contained in the preamble were indisputably proved. He had heard a great deal of witnesses who had not been called. On the one
1671
The Earl of Enniskillen
said, that although he had supported the bringing in of this bill, he yet thought, upon an occasion of this nature, that every man should be guided by his own judgment. He had attended to the evidence strictly and impartially; and had done his utmost to understand it. He considered, upon the whole, that it was so inconsistent, that it comprised such a mass of contradiction, and was so suspicious, that he could not possibly consent to convict any person upon it. He, therefore, should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that considering the strong conviction which he entertained that gross and degrading familiarities had been proved against her majesty—considering, also, that the reasons which he had urged against this bill, on its first introduction, were all of them now redoubled in weight and importance—he should be guilty of forsaking his duty if he did not state the reasons for the vote which he intended to give. He by no means meant to say, that no bill of degradation would be a proper punishment for the licentious conduct which had been proved on the part of her majesty; but if the present bill were fully justifiable in all other respects, looking at the peculiar circumstances of her majesty's situation, he must say that the same moral necessity, which, under the circumstances of gross and aggravated licentiousness that had been established against her majesty, might be supposed
1672
1673
1674
1675
The Marquis of Stafford
said, that both on the ground of justice and of expediency, the measure before the House appeared to him objectionable. The learned lord on the woolsack had advised their lordships to "be just and fear not." He also would say so; and he would beg leave to proceed with the quotation—
"Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's,
Thy God's and truth's."
Lord De Clifford
said, that although he had made up his mind to a particular view of the question, still he could not suffer himself to give a silent vote on it. The charge against her majesty was, that she had carried on an adulterous intercourse with a person of low condition, and in a most disgusting manner. But,
1676
Lord Grantham
said, that feeling on the question before their lordships a difference of opinion from those who generally received his public support, and who invariably possessed his private esteem, he could not refrain from stating the reasons by which his vote would be influenced. It had been well observed, that the decision of that House ought to be influenced only by evidence unsuspected and unsuspicious, and which must bring conviction home to every impartial mind. Now, he had paid the closest attention to the evidence, and he could not, in his conscience, say that it had turned out to be of that character. It had been said that enough had been proved to be decisive in ordinary cases and in an ordinary court; but the present was not an ordinary case, nor was that an ordinary court. Their lordships were engaged, not in an inquiry whether any offence had been committed against the existing law, but in framing a new law to meet an existing offence. For his part, he saw so many difficulties in the way of passing the bill in that House—so many difficulties in the way of passing it in the other House—so many difficulties of every description against which no human foresight could guard, even if the bill should pass both Houses, that he could not help thinking the wisest and best course would be to put an end to the measure at once. He was perfectly aware that such a proceeding would also be attended with some difficulties. He was aware that it would be attended with triumph to a mischievous
1677
The Earl of Blesington
said, that though the evidence had been so fully discussed, there were two or three points to which he begged leave to call their attention. A noble lord opposite, observed on Saturday, that the polacre case was quite sufficient, and that upon this the evidence remaining uncontradicted, his mind was made up. Now, it did appear to him, that neither the evidence of Gargiulo or Paturzo was untouched. Paturzo stated, that when certain transactions took place on the deck, his relation, Gargiulo, sent him away, sometimes on one pretence, sometimes on another. Now, when Gargiulo was examined to this fact, he denied any recollection of it; but he afterwards, on being pressed, acknowledged he had sent Paturzo away once, and but once only. In another part of his evidence, in which he wished to show that great indecency, if not adultery, had been committed on the voyage (he alluded to the situation of the bed on deck), he was contradicted by two persons. It was
1678
The Earl of Gosford
said, that from the evidence which had been adduced at their lordships bar, had this been a case of impeachment, he must have been under the painful necessity of pronouncing a verdict of guilty; but he could not for many cogent reasons, give his vote for a measure, which was pregnant with danger and difficulty. He expected, when a case of this kind was introduced, that it should be supported by such decided evidence as would convince every mind. This had not been the case here. He would not listen to any thing dictated by faction, violence, or clamour. But he admired the generous, independent, and loyal feeling of this country; and that feeling he believed to be hostile to the measure. Their lordships could not, he conceived, take more effectual means to allay the irritation which at present prevailed in the public mind than by throwing out this obnoxious bill. He could not see how any man could vote for it without the divorce clause; and he knew not how I any man could vote for the measure with
1679
The Duke of Athol
said, he never rose with so heavy a heart as he did on the present occasion. The vote he was about to give was dictated by a sense of duty, and by a feeling of honour and conscience. Other noble lords took a different view of the subject from that which he entertained. He gave them credit for the purity of their motives, and he claimed the same liberality himself. The evidence in this case was so clear and convincing, as to leave no doubt on his mind. They had for nearly fifty days been occupied with this subject; and having attended with as much consideration as possible to every thing that had occurred at their lordships bar—to all the evidence that had been adduced—to every argument that had been advanced for and against the measure; having marked with attention the eloquent speeches of many noble lords, he declared upon his honour, as a peer of parliament, that he considered her majesty's guilt to have been proved even by her own evidence. Thinking so, he should feel himself unworthy of a seat in that House if he did not state his opinion. If, then, the charges were well founded, what was the House to do? He did not profess to be lawyer sufficient to enter into a discussion of the history of bills of this nature. It was for him only to express himself, like a conscientious juror. The question for them to consider was, whether this bill should go to a second reading or not? He would not detain their lordships by stating the evidence, and commenting on those disgraceful scenes which it disclosed. He could not, however, but observe, that many noble lords, who had given their opinion against the further progress of this bill, had, at the same time, stated that they believed the Queen to be guilty. That they should vote against the measure surprised him greatly. They must have recollected that it had been incontestably proved that for 35 days the Queen was within a tent alone with Bergami. Even her majesty's counsel admitted the fact. Did not this afford ground for more than suspicion? Standing in the situation of the father of a family, it became his duty, when called on, to state what construction he put on such conduct; and, in his opinion, no construction
1680
1681
The Duke of Somerset
said, he objected to bills of Pains and Penalties generally, as being of an anomalous nature. The present case was one of extreme hardship, the evidence being chiefly that of discarded servants, who were always viewed with an eye of suspicion. A most material witness for the prosecution had been allowed to withdraw himself; and this circumstance strongly confirmed the suspicion of a conspiracy, which other facts had excited. Several of the stories, too, had been completely contradicted by witnesses of the most respectable character. There were not sufficient grounds for passing a bill of Pains and Penalties. Throughout the discussion there had been a confusion of two things: it was one question whether there had been any impropriety in the conduct of the Queen; it was quite another question, whether there was proof of the guilt charged in the preamble, which, alone could warrant a vote for the second reading. If there had been improprieties in the conduct of the Queen, it did not follow that she was guilty of adulterous intercourse. There was direct proof only of the manners of the Queen; there was nothing proved of the state of her morals. The evidence against the Queen was discredited by the manner of giving it; there was the most minute recollection of matters against the Queen; while, on other matters, there was no recollection at all. In judging, too, of the conduct of the Queen, their lordships ought never to forget that she had come a foreigner to this country; that she had been notorious for the freedom of her manners before she was selected to be the wife of his majesty; and that a complete conformity to the manners of this country was not to be expected. In her conduct many extraordinary and imprudent circumstances might be traced; but they were not hard to be accounted for, without any impeachment of her morals. This prosecution had excited feelings of disapprobation throughout Europe. He earnestly hoped the bill would not pass, and he most decidedly and conscientiously, would give his vote against the second reading.
Lord Grenville
observed, that almost every noble lord who had spoken on the occasion, had described the pain with which he undertook the discharge of a duty so distressing to every honourable mind. In that extreme reluctance he also deeply participated, and even at that
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, be gave his noble friend full credit for the declaration made at the outset of his speech, that in delivering his opinion on this subject he was not anxious to influence the judgment of others. But the arguments of his noble friend, notwithstanding this declaration, did appear to him to be calculated directly to influence the vote of the House. He agreed with his noble friend in thinking, that circumstantial evidence was of great importance; and he also admitted that his noble friend had truly described the nature of such evidence, when he said that it applied to those cases in which a number of circumstances all concurred to the same end—that was, to the same act—so that it appeared to the human mind next to an impossibility that that act had not taken place. He admitted that such circumstances so concurring, ought to have, and must have, great weight; but let him apply this principle of evidence to the present case. Would his noble friend tell their lordships that these circumstances, the character of which he had defined, applied to this case, and tended to exclude the possibility of believing that the alleged guilt had not taken place? His noble friend had said, that in a case of murder, if a man was found with a knife, his garments bloody, the time concurring, he being proved to have been from home, and unable to give
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
The house then divided:
Contents
123
Not-contents
95
Majority for the second reading.
28
List of the Contents,; and also of the Not-Contents
CONTENTS
Lords Prudhoe
Bayning
Harris
Carrington
Ross (Glasgow)
Dunstanville
Meldrum (Aboyne)
Rous
Saltersford (Courtown)
Hill
Combermere
Stewart of Garlies (Galloway)
Hopetoun
Gambier
Manners
Stuart (Moray)
Ailsa. (Cassilis)
Douglas (Morton)
Lauderdale
Sheffield
Grenville
Redesdale
Suffield
St. Helens
Montagu
Northwick
Gordon (Huntly)
Bolton
1699
Somers
Abergavenny
Rodney
Aylesbury
Middleton
Bathurst
Napier
Chatham
Colville
Harcourt
Gray
Warwick
Saltoun
Portsmouth
Forbes
Graham (Montrose)
Bishops Cork
Landaff
Pomfret
Peterborough
Macclesfield
Gloucester
Aylesford
Chester
Coventry
Ely
Rochford
St. Asaph
Abingdon
St. David's
Shaftesbury
Worcester
Cardigan
London
Balcarras
Viscounts Exmouth
Winchilsea
Lake
Stamford
Sidmouth
Bridgewater
Melville
Home
Curzon
Huntingdon
Sydney
Marq. Conyngham
Falmouth
Thomond
Hereford
Headfort
Earls Limeric
Anglesea
Ross
Northampton
Donoughmore
Camden
Belmore
Exeter
Mayo
Cornwallis
Longford
Buckingham
Mount Cashel
Lothian
Kingston
Queensberry
St. Germains
Winchester
Brownlow
Dukes Wellington
Whitworth
Northumberland
Verulam
Cathcart
Newcastle
Mulgrave
Rutland
Lonsdale
Beaufort
Orford
Lord Privy Seal
Manvers
Lord President
Nelson
Archbishop of Tuam
Powis
Lord Chancellor
Liverpool
Archbishop of Canterbury
Digby
Mount Edgecumbe
Duke of Clarence
Duke of York.
Strange (Athol)
NOT CONTENTS
Lords Breadalbane
Auckland
Erskine
Gage
Arden
Fisherwick
Ellenborough
(Donegal)
Alvanley
Amherst
Loftus (Ely)
Kenyon
Fitzgibbon (Clare)
Sherborne
Berwick
Calthorpe
Ashburton
Dawney (Downe)
Bagot
Walsingham
Yarborough
Dynevor
Dundas
Foley
Selsea
Hawke
Mendip (Clifden)
Sandridge (Argyle)
1700
Ducie
Mansfield
Holland
Fortescue
Grantham
Grosvenor
King
Hillsborough (Downshire)
Clifton (Darnley)
Delawar
Howard of Effingham
Ilchester
Darlington
Saye and Sele
Egremont
Dacre
Fitzwilliam
Zouche
Stanhope
Clinton
Cowper
Audley
Dartmouth
De Clifford
Oxford
Belhaven.
Rosebery
Viscounts Granville
Jersey
Anson
Albemarle
Duncan
Plymouth
Hood
Essex
Leinster (duke of)
Thanet
Denbigh
Torrington
Suffolk
Boling broke.
Pembroke
Derby
Earls Blesington
Marquisses Bath
Caledon
Stafford
Enniskillen
Lansdown
Farnham
Dukes Portland
Gosford
Brandon (Hamilton)
Carrick
Morley
Devonshire
Minto
Bedford
Harewood
Grafton
Grey
Richmond
Romney
Somerset.
Rosslyn
Archbishop of York
Carnarvon
Duke of Gloucester.
Protests against the Second Reading of the Bill.
DISSENTIENT, NO. 1.
Because the second reading of the bill is equivalent to a decision that adulterous intercourse (the only foundation on which the bill can rest) has been satisfactorily proved.
Because that adulterous intercourse has been inferred, but not proved; and in a doubtful case, in which the imputed guilt is not proved, although innocence be not established, the benefit of that doubt, conformably to the principles of British justice, must be given to the defendant.
Essex, first reason only
Mansfield
Enniskillen
Hillsborough, first reason only
Richmond and Lenox
Jersey, first reason only
Kenyon
Orford
Carrick
Somerset
Grafton, first reason only
Selsey
Rosebery
Anson, first reason only
Morley, first reason only
Darlington, first reason only
Belhaven, first reason only
Leinster
1701
DISSENTIENT, NO. II.
Because this proceeding, from its nature, cannot be assimilated to a common indictment, in which a conviction upon one count alone, out of many, is sufficient.
And because, although enough has been proved in evidence to satisfy us of the existence of guilt, yet as evidence on many of the allegations has been contradicted, in some disproved, and in others is so suspicious as to be laid wholly out of the case, we are of opinion that it is inexpedient to proceed further in this measure.
Plymouth
Clinton, second reason only
Dynevor
Grantham
Gage, second reason
Denbigh
Ilchester.
The following Peers have also protested against the Bill upon general grounds:—
DISSENTIENT, NO. III.
William Frederick
Fortescue
Lansdown
Darlington
Jersey
Belhaven
Grey
Calthorpe
Plymouth
Ellenborough
Fitzgibhon
Grafton
Albemarle
Breadalbane
Hamilton and Brandon
Auckland
Dawnav (Downe)
Duncan
Mendip (Clifden)
Hillsborough
Leinster
Wentworth (Fitzwilliam)
Hawke
Gosford
Derby
Romney
Anson
Rosebery
Yarborough
Scott (Portland)
Sherborne
Thanet
Cowper
Hood
Audley
Ashburton
Kenyon
Howard of Effingham
Carrick
Selsey
Alvanley
Foley
Carnarvon
Arden
Dundas
Egremont
Caledon
Torrington
Sunridge
Suffoik and Berks
Ducie
Loftus (Ely)
King
Morley
Rosslyn
Granville
Dacre
Richmond and Lenox
Grantham
Bedford
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, November 7, 1820.
The House having been called over,
Lord Dacre
rose for the purpose of presenting a protest on the part of her majesty, which had just been put into his hands by her attorney-general. He ought, perhaps, to apologize for not having stated his sentiments as to the proceedings
1702
The Lord Chancellor
said, that according to the rules and regulations of their proceedings fn all matters of accusation before them by bill, the person who was placed in the situation of the accused, after the second reading of the bill, had a right to be personally heard. That was a doctrine which prevailed in Atterbury's case, and several others. He thought it right, if it was to be considered as the address of the individual sending it to the House, that it should be taken notice of and received as such; but strictly speak-
1703
The Earl of Liverpool
had no objection to the paper being received as the address of the Queen, provided a formal entry were made in the Journals to that effect. It might be entered on the Journals, not as a protest, but as a representation of what the feelings of the Queen were, and an address which she would have made had she been personally present.
The Lord Chancellor
agreed, that it was proper to receive it in some way or other, and thought it might be received under the name of an address, but certainly not of a protest, which might form a precedent for individuals protesting against the proceedings of that House.
The Earl of Lauderdale greed
, that this protest should be put, in some way or other, on the Journals. It should stand there as the address of the Queen. But, considering it as an address, he begged to ask, whether their lordships thought it one which, if delivered at the bar, would have been received by the House without interruption? It was said in that paper, that noble lords came from the secret committee "with minds biassed by a mass of slanders." How could her majesty know that all the evidence which had been brought before the secret committee had not been laid before the House? This was one of the most direct calumnies ever vented against the House. He, for one, had sat upon the committee, and he declared, before God, that his opinion of the Queen's guilt had arisen from her own defence. Was it possible that their lordships would permit themselves to be thus slandered?
The Duke of Newcastle
, conceiving that he had been attacked by this protest, which, by a sort of
ex post facto
Lord Somers
, who had also been absent for a day or two during the defence, maintained his right of voting, and endeavoured to vindicate his conduct against the reflection cast upon noble lords in his si-
1704
The Duke of Athol
, justified his voting on the bill, notwithstanding a temporary absence from the House during the investigation, by saying that he read all the evidence with the utmost attention.
Lord Sheffield
said, that he should not have thought it worth his while to notice the allusions in which he was included, if he had not been desirous of appearing to noble lords, for whom he bad great respect, to have had sufficient reason for occasional absence. He had been extremely ill since the adjournment of the House, and he came up on the 3rd of October, at the hazard of his life, to attend his duty in that House; but when he did not attend, it was at the urgent solicitation of his medical advisers. He was credibly informed, however, that he had lost nothing by not attending the debates, but that he was saved some mortification by not being a witness to certain; concessions and submissions—that he I always understood their lordships should I be guided by the written evidence, and no other—that it should be recollected the I written evidence alone guided the decisions of the Court of Chancery, and also I Doctors' Commons; and he presumed to say, he was as well acquainted with the evidence as any of their lordships; but he particularly protested against the suggestion, that it was unfair to her majesty's cause to decide on the written evidence, and insisted that it was infinitely more favourable to the Queen, because that evidence did not record many prevarications, evasions, change of countenance, faintings, and other symptoms that might have made a very unfavourable impression.
1705
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, it had never occurred to him, that those who did not hear the whole of the evidence for and against the bill, could be competent to give a vote in a case of this description. This was certainly a matter in the discretion of their lordships, and he was far from saying, that it was wrong that it should thus be left to their discretion. With respect to the protest before them, he could have wished certain unguarded expressions to have been omitted; at the same time, considering the painful situation in which her majesty was placed, he thought the greatest latitude of indulgence ought to be allowed. Wishing to do justice, according to the principles of British jurisprudence, had he been on the secret committee, he thought he could hardly have trusted himself to come there as an impartial judge. After what had taken place, had he been counsel for the Queen, he thought he should have advised no further appeal to their lordships in any future stage of these proceedings. Of all the calamities which had grown out of this great national calamity, he considered the declarations made in that House, that day, were not the least. Those declarations, which went to assert a right to condemn the Queen without hearing the whole of the evidence, appeared to him calculated to induce their lordships to trample on the vital principles of justice. He had thought it a vital principle of justice that no accused person should be condemned but on oral testimony. Those who felt exempted from the observance of this principle, seemed to him to act in violation of the most sacred principles of British justice. He then commented on the conduct of certain noble lords in this respect, and contended, that when proxies were excluded from voting, it was intended to preclude those from giving a vote on this bill, who had not heard the whole of the evidence, as the vote of the proxy would be good, but it was objected that the party had not had the advantage of witnessing the proceedings. Again, in reference to the protest, he would contend that they could not relax the strict rule too much with respect to any representation which this unfortunate lady might be disposed to make.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had heard of no disinclination—he felt no disinclination himself—to receive, in some form or other, the matters contained in the
1706
The Earl of Lauderdale
suggested, that the word "justly" should be inserted in the resolution, immediately after the word "might."
Earl Grey
said, that the House had already done mischief for which there was no remedy; and, though their lordships might still compel his attendance, he would not utter a single word during the remainder of the proceedings. The suggestion of his noble friend appeared to him to be unnecessary. The only exception which the House had a right to take, referred to that part of the protest in which allusion had been made to the conduct of noble lords in that House. But if it was meant to be insinuated, that the other exceptions made by her majesty were not just, from that conclusion he must dissent, thinking, as he did, that they were most just. It was true that some noble lords had reconciled it to their consciences to pronounce a verdict of guilty, without hearing the whole of the evidence. Of that he did not com-
1707
Lord Redesdale
said, he could conceive nothing more mischievous than suffering it to be understood, that, because a peer had been a member of a secret committee, he should therefore be disqualified from his vote. With respect to the statement in the paper which referred to the members of the secret committee, it was an imputation not only absolutely false, but scandalous.
The Earl of Darnley
said, he never could believe that, ultimately, the House would pass a measure which was unnecessary, which was defective with reference to the mode of proceeding, and which was not established by that incontrovertible evidence, on which alone it ought to stand. He could not avoid congratulating their lordships on the division that took place yesterday. Let their lordships look at that division, and ask themselves whether it was possible that a large proportion of those noble lords who voted for the bill could have come to the consideration of this subject with perfectly unbiassed minds? It could not be forgotten that a large proportion of that majority was composed of the accusers themselves—a large proportion of it was constituted of individuals who had recently received favours from the Crown.
The House having gone into the committee,
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that in the usual proceedings of the House, the course adopted in committees was, in the first instance, to postpone the preamble. In the present case, however, the proceeding should be on the truth or falsehood of the preamble. That was the question now. The early part of the preamble he considered to be completely proved. With respect to that part of the clause in which her majesty was stated to have obtained for Bergami
1708
Lord Ellenborough
objected to the words "and in other respects."
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the allegation was most material, and he begged to call the attention of the House to that part of the evidence by which it was borne out [Here the noble earl referred to various parts of the evidence which supported the allegation.]
Lord Ellenborough
said, he understood the words "and in other respects" to mean offensive and indecent familiarities towards other persons besides Bergami. The instances stated by the noble earl were all instances in which Bergami was present.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, his idea was, that the words did not imply familiarities towards other individuals, but that they expressed offensive and indecent familiarities where Bergami was not alone with her. He had, however, no objection to leave out the words.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that although the evidence at the bar proved her majesty guilty of adultery, yet, thinking that the bill ought not to pass, he submitted, that the person who was to remain Queen of this country ought not to be declared by their lordships guilty of "adulterous intercourse." To retain such an allegagation would be to degrade the king and the queen.
The Earl of Harrowby
asked, if the fact was proved, how it was possible not to state it in the preamble? This was the feeling of every man who voted for the second reading; and many who had voted against the second reading had stated that they believed the adultery.
Lord Calthorpe
objected to the clause on the broad ground of expediency.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the
1709
Lord Erskine
said, that the words ought to be left out; first, because they were not proved by the evidence, and, also because the paper laid by her majesty on the table confirmed the opinion of her innocence. In the course of his professional life he had heard protestations of innocence from the mouths of persons whom he believed to be guilty; but, feeling an opinion that she was innocent from the evidence, that declaration by her majesty confirmed his opinion on the evidence. As the case was not proved by the evidence, the protestation of the accused must confirm the belief of her innocence. But his reason for opposing the words was, that they were most degrading to the king. How was it possible to degrade the Queen, and not to divorce her? Was it not the first object, in every case of adultery, to be relieved from the party whose infidelity should be proved? He was of opinion that no adultery had been proved, and he thought the first moment of striking out the charge ought to be taken.
Lord Gage
said, that, it being not a case of adultery, the word "suspicious" was the proper term.
York
1710
The Bishop of Chester
said, that having no doubt that the crime of adultery bad been proved against her majesty, he voted yesterday for the second reading of the bill. This vote, however, he gave on, an understanding that the divorce clause was to be laid aside.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, that if the question was, whether divorces
a vinculo matrimonii
The Bishop of Worcester
opposed the divorce clause. He could not vote for it, unless the Queen were allowed the same
1711
The Bishop of Landaff
thought that to retain the clause would, on the whole, be most advisable. According to the law of the country, ho knew no other cause of divorce than adultery, and no other punishment for adultery than divorce; and, as to the Christian law, it certainly provided that dissolution of marriage might take place in any case of adultery.
The Bishop of London
said, that in the present case a great constitutional question was involved, and in a constitutional point of view it must be regarded. It was a maxim of the constitution of this country, that the king could do no wrong. It was said by an able writer, that the king could not be guilty of a folly, much less a crime. This principle, if carried to the full length, would seem to remove all ground for recrimination, all inquiry into the conduct of his majesty in his conjugal relations. He did not, however, mean to argue it on such a principle. He saw no reason why the clause of divorce should not remain. There were many instances of bills of divorce having passed that House, though the conduct of the husband was notoriously reprehensible. The essential point was, the proof of adultery, which he considered to be established, and therefore, in a moral, constitutional, and religious point of view, he felt it his duty to support the clause.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that in wishing to exclude the divorce clause, he contended for no other proposition than this,—that the parties had not come before them in a situation that admitted of its application. Her majesty had acquired, by her marriage contract, rights both public and private. She had been found disqualified for exercising her public rights, and, therefore, she was by this bill to be deprived of them. But, was this any ground for the House going farther? Was there to be one law for the King, and another for the subject? No. He agreed with the learned doctor (Lushington), who had spoken admirably and eloquently for the defence, that the law of marriage was the same with regard to the highest as to the lowest subject in the realm. If he was rightly informed, adultery in the ecclesiastical court was considered as a
peccatum
1712
femme sole
femme couverte
The Earl of Darnley
also expressed his astonishment that the right rev. metropolitan, should lay the ground for the divorce clause in the Scriptures. He had never seen any thing of the kind in the Holy Scriptures: he recollected a text which said, "he that putteth away his wife, saving for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." Now, in this case, had not the husband put away his wife? If he had, and it was not for fornication, had he or had he not caused her to commit adultery? It appeared to him that they could not pass the bill with the divorce clause, nor without it. Not with, for the reasons he had already stated; not without, for how could the Queen be degraded without being divorced? Could the wife of the King be other than Queen? Could any of their lordships wives lose
1713
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, that the case was not to be considered as one in which common parties were concerned. The King was not a suitor to the House; he only appeared as the head of the state, and not in his personal character. The case could not, therefore, be decided by the rules applicable to private individuals. Their lordships had already determined that the conduct of the Queen had been such as to render her unfit to remain a sovereign. They owed it to the country, to the King, to themselves—they especially owed it to the women of the country, to pass this clause. There were few of their lordships who had not declared their opinion, that the act of adultery had been proved. Many of those who had voted against the bill, thought it right to state their conviction of the guilt of the illustrious person in question. The evidence had proved her to be unfit to sit as Queen Consort of these realms. They had understood on high authority, that his majesty himself had no feeling on the subject. It was not for any purpose of a personal nature that this bill ought to be passed. God forbid that the House should pass it on such a ground. But in what a light would their lordships appear, if, after agreeing to the early part of the preamble, they should omit the two concluding lines, lest it should be supposed they were courting the royal favour! He was fully convinced, that the clause ought to be retained in the bill.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that the measure was founded on state policy; but the introduction of the divorce clause appeared to him to give it the air of a measure of personal relief. Since that time he found that a great impression to that effect had been made in other quarters. Consider-able difference of opinion prevailed among the right rev. prelates, who had devoted themselves to the consideration of the subject, and he understood that the disinclination to agree to this clause was not confined to those who had stated to the House their individual sentiments. It would by no means be necessary, if the divorce clause were omitted, that the re-
1714
Earl Fitzwilliam
said, that he had the strongest objections to the clause under consideration, and thought it was impossible that the House could proceed to separate a man and wife from the marriage state, neither of whom sought for such separation.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the House would do him the justice to recollect, that on the 19th of August, he had particularly urged this proceeding, on the grounds of public justice, and had then stated, that he knew much misrepresentation had elsewhere prevailed on the subject of the remedy required by one of the parties. It was said to be sought for as a measure of personal relief for the prince I on the throne. On that ground, he did distinctly disclaim the measure, and had said, that so far from that being the ground on which he proposed the bill, he was ready, if any religious feeling prevailed upon the divorce part of the measure, to relinquish that part of the relief altogether. He had always said, that: though a divorce might be the effect of the bill in one respect, yet that it was not its principle; that the bill was in fact a I public measure, and not one of private relief. And he had even gone further, and said, that there might be cases of a young king and a young wife, in which was involved the integrity of the succession, when the House would not be warranted to pronounce a divorce, if the parties had previously been in a state of
1715
1716
The Lord Chancellor
said, he could never bring himself to agree with Black-stone, that marriage was merely a civil contract. In truth, it could not be a civil contract, for it was the parent not the child of civil society—"principiumurbis et fundamentum reipublicæ;." It had been said, "those whom God hath joined, let no man put asunder." But this doctrine was fully explained in many parts of the New Testament. During the period of the Reformation, when men's minds were much afloat on the subject of religion, he took the Marriage law to be settled thus—that marriage was a civil contract. But unless the ecclesiastical law formed no part of the law of the land, it was a religious contract also. It was a civil contract as far as civil rights were concerned, and it was equally a religious right in religious matters. The ecclesiastical courts can know nothing of a divorce
è vinculo matrimonii;
1717
femme sole;
Lord Duncan
took the opportunity of asserting, that the whole proceeding against the Queen obviously arose out of abase and foul conspiracy, supported by perjuredwitnesses. For one, he could fearlessly lay his hand upon his heart, and give a verdict of "not guilty."
The further debate upon the clause was adjourned till to-morrow.
1718
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, November 8, 1820.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Bill, the debate on the Divorce clause was resumed.
The Archbishop of Tuam
said:—My Lords; It is with pain that I offer myself to the notice of your lordships, which I should not have done, had it not been for the very direct manner in which the body, of which I form a part, were called upon yesterday. My lords, I will refer you to the 32nd verse of the 5th chapter of St. Matthew. My mind has long been made up to vote against the Divorce clause from that very verse; but, if I can show that this illustrious lady has been put away by her husband; if I also show from the Holy Scriptures a solemn denunciation against such putting away, then shall I show sufficient ground to induce me to vote against the Divorce clause, which would release the King from the marriage contract, and leave him at liberty to marry again. That such a putting away of the wife did take place is abundantly evident from the letter of the husband. The denunciation to which I have alluded is in the 2nd chapter of Malachi, when, for literally putting away a wife, the face of the Lord was turned away from the people, and he regarded not their offerings. The temples resounded with the lamentations of the women; and the Prophet established his charge against them as a crying sin, by reminding them of the first institution of marriage. The God of Israel hath said, "he hateth all putting away." My lords, I stand here a most unwilling judge in this cause, and I will candidly confess that nothing but the heavy penalties attached to absence, would have compelled me to attend this distressing investigation. I have been brought here, from the most important duties, which no one but myself could be called upon to perform, and which have been suspended three months in consequence of my absence. I have paid every attention to the whole of the evidence on both sides—to the able arguments of counsel and to the eloquent speeches of noble lords. I have attended every day, every hour, and, I may almost say, every minute; and I have voted for the second reading of this bill, because no other measure was before the House, in which I could declare that a clear, satisfactory, and irresistible case had been made out of the guilt of the
1719
The Bishop of Peterborough
said, that it had ever been his desire, that, if possible, the clause should be omitted, not that he had felt any doubt as to its legality, for he was sure that in cases of adultery, divorce was sanctioned as well by the laws of God as by those of man; and he was compelled to acknowledge, that in this case the adultery had been clearly proved. But there were in his mind objections to the manner in which it had been introduced. He thought a Divorce clause ought not to be made a part of a bill of Pains and Penalties. He could not see how the Queen could be placed in a state of degradation, and yet at the same time remain the wife of the King. The wife of the King was, to all intents and purposes, Queen-Consort. He, therefore, desired to know, remaining in this situation, by what possible enactment she could be deprived of the title of Queen. The Divorce clause made the bill intelligible, its object being to degrade; but without that, or some clause in its place, it would not be distinctly expressed in what the degradation of her majesty was to consist. Instead of agreeing to the Divorce clause, could not a clause be introduced less powerful in its operation, yet, at the same time sufficient to give effect to the sentence of degradation, though free from the objections which applied to the Divorce clause? The objections to the Divorce clause were chiefly of a religious nature; but as matrimony, though unquestionably a religious institution, was also a civil contract, and gave civil rights, he would ask if those civil rights could not be annulled, leaving the religious part of the contract untouched by this bill? Any clause that might be offered to effect this, should have his support.
Lord Redesdale
said, he admitted that marriage was a civil contract and also a religious contract; but it was also in the nature of a religious vow, and from that vow no human power could relieve the parties. The only question was, whether by the adultery of the wife that vow was not discharged as to the husband? But as marriage was a civil contract, it affected other parties besides those who contracted; for instance, the children born of the wife: a divorce was to regulate the civil rights, and so far only did any
1720
The Lord Chancellor
said, that with respect to the declaration which had been made upon this clause at the beginning of the discussions upon this subject by his noble friend near him (the earl of Liverpool), he begged to be understood as a party to it now, though he had not so expressed himself at the time. His noble friend on the former occasion had said, that this clause should not be pressed, if it was found objectionable to the religious' part of the community. If such were the general impression, he also thought it advisable that the clause should not be pressed, though he himself thought it would be more wise to retain the clause. Having thus stated the impression of his own judgment, he was most ready to pay that deference to the religious opinions of others, which, as a public man, he felt he was bound to do. He could not, however, say, that he concurred in the opinion of marriage being more a religious vow than a religious contract. He thought that the civil contract arose out of its being a religious one. But he thought it was quite obvious that, if the Divorce clause were omitted, the bill could not be suffered to stand with the first enactment, and without some explanatory one respecting the object of the bill. It was due to both parties that the first enactment should not stand unaccompanied by another to: make the bill fully intelligible. If a majority of the House should be of opinion that this clause should stand, then there I would be an end of the necessity of any j further proposition upon the subject. If, however, they dismissed the Divorce
1721
è mensa et thoro
è vinculo matrimonii.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he felt it his duty to protest against the doctrine, that there might exist a woman the wife of the King and not the Queen-Consort of these realms. He felt all the objections to the admissions of the clause before them, but he felt still more the difficulty of admitting a character directly irreconcilable to the constitution—a person being the wife of the King, but fulfilling no one purpose, answering no one end which the country expected, and had a right to expect, from the wife of the Sovereign. Their lordships, after admitting the clause, reading it a second time with the bill, and then rejecting it in the committee, would proclaim to the world that the Queen had been an adulteress; but that, entertaining that opinion, they thought it fit that she should continue the wife of the King. Disguise it as they would, this was the effect of their declaration. Was it a matter of indifference to proclaim this, when the whole course of history and the whole tenor of the laws, asserted the principle that the marriage of the King was contracted to answer, not individual purposes, but great public objects, and when parliament had legislated with that view? Admitting that the Queen might be degraded, and yet remain the wife of the King, they incapacitated her, and also the King himself from rendering those public services by means of marriage, which parliament always had considered that the marriage was contracted to answer. He did not say that he approved of the clause in itself,
1722
in toto,
Lord King
said, he was anxious to see the enactments of the bill less absurd than the preamble was unjust; for he considered there was an utter want of evidence, and that the noble lords had been influenced by reports. He would confess that he, for one, had not been able, though he endeavoured to divest his mind of them. He had heard, for instance, in support of the assertion, that the Queen had been guilty of indecent familiarities with Bergami, that she had been guilty of indecent familiarities of the same nature with the earl of Liver-pool, at Blackheath,
videlicet,
1723
Earl Grey
said, that in his opinion, the separation of the Divorce clause from that which enacted degradation was utterly incompatible with that sense of duty towards the Crown which the Crown had a right to expect from the supporters of this bill. He felt considerable difficulty in voting for this clause, as it assumed that that had been made out which he thought had not been established. He had formed the intention of giving no vote; but he now made up his mind to vote for retaining this clause, believing that it would place the House in such a situation that they must reject the bill altogether, and thus confer upon the country the greatest service that it was in their power to confer.
Lord Ellenborough
entreated of their lordships to consider what they were in effect declaring to the country, by enacting, that a person unfit for being the Queen of this country, must remain the wife of the King. It was, in fact, passing a seditious libel against the King.
Lord Somers
could not reconcile it to his mind to vote that a person declared guilty of adultery should remain a millstone about the King's neck.
The Earl of Limerick
said, he had voted for the second reading from the clearest conviction of the Queen's guilt; but if this clause were omitted, the bill would degrade, not only the Queen, but the King, and the nation, by leaving as the wife of the possessor of the throne a woman whom they had declared to be guilty of adultery.
The Earl of Essex
thought he could reconcile to himself the inconsistency of voting for the Divorce clause, even after the perfect conviction that not one atom of the preamble of the bill had been proved. He never had a doubt, that at no distant period, this foul conspiracy would come to light, and that the plots of the Grimms and the Omptedas would be developed. He felt it his duty to state, in justice to this illustrious princess, that in 1819 he had the honour of waiting upon her at Lyons, where there existed no mystery whatever, and where the conduct of Bergami was of the most respectful description.
Lord Anson
said, he would vote for the Divorce clause, in order to give the greatest possible chance of throwing out
1724
The Earl of Thanet
declared his entire conviction of the innocence of the Queen; in the hope of saving whom from the foul confederacy which sought her destruction, he should vote for the Divorce clause.
The Earl of Carnarvon
begged their lordships to consider what the consequence would be of passing a bill of degradation without Divorce. They were all aware of a statute which made it high treason to violate the wife of the sovereign. They proposed to pass a bill of degradation in order to protect the morality of the country. Her majesty might still remain in the kingdom and might continue to indulge in that vice which they assumed to be proved. Would any noble lord say that her prosecutors could come to that House for a second bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty? If this were purely a bill of divorce, no ground whatever could be assumed for degradation but the ground of divorce on account of adultery. Were their lordships to declare, by their vote, that a person not fit to be the associate of the meanest individual in the land, was yet a fit individual to be the associate of the King? He, for one, would never concur in such a wanton insult on the King.
Lord Holland
said, that in his view the objection to the bill was ten times stronger than it could be in his noble friend's view. If they rejected the divorce, the Queen would still be the companion of the King, and whoever should violate her, would be guilty of high treason. He would vote for the clause, in order to throw out the bill.
The Marquis of Buckingham
said, he had been anxious to hear the opinions of the reverend bench of bishops on this subject; and the result of their opinions had confirmed those which he had before entertained, that, by the law of God, there was no impediment to divorce in cases of adultery. He differed in opinion from a learned lord, who had said, that if the divorce clause was rejected, the Queen would only remain wife of the King as to her religious rights, but that all her civil rights would be forfeited. Finding nothing in the law of God to prevent divorce for adultery; and, believing the adultery in the present case to have been proved, he would not consent, that a woman, who had been deemed unfit to retain the rank and situation of Queen
1725
The Earl of Glasgow
said, that from the evidence an irresistible conviction having been impressed on his mind that adultery was committed, he voted for the second reading of the bill. No consideration on earth could have induced him to vote as he had done, but a thorough belief that the charge was completely made out. He could enter into no compromise with adultery, and must therefore support the clause.
Earl Manvers
said, that the bill had his most entire and unqualified approbation, and that he would never consent to the exclusion of the only important enactment, and one which necessarily followed the preamble of the bill. A noble viscount had yesterday declared it as his conscientious opinion, that the Queen was the victim of a foul and base conspiracy. He trusted it would not be thought too presumptuous in him, if (after having given the evidence and arguments on both sides the most anxious attention) he declared, from an equally conscientious conviction, that instead of being the victim of a foul conspiracy, her conduct had been most degrading and scandalous—most adulterous and infamous.
Lord Hampden
said, he must vote for divorcing one whose name was covered with shame, disgrace, and dishonour.
Lord Falmouth
said, that a noble marquis had stated, that it was a monstrous anomaly to strip the Queen of her rights and privileges, and still suffer her to remain the wife of the King; but, was there a single woman in the country who had no civil, no private rights? One of those rights, and it was the right of every married woman, was her husband's protection. If their lordships were of a different opinion, he should regret having suffered the bill to reach its present stage, without having declared his sentiments against it. A right reverend prelate had reminded them of the principle, that the King could do no wrong. This might be a good principle in Jaw; and he knew that it was in some senses correct; but, if taken ac-
1726
The Earl of Darnley
said, he was under the painful necessity, however, of differing with his friends, so far as to think that the divorce clause ought not to stand part of the bill. The argument of the right reverend prelate had not been answered. Feeling irresistibly the force of it, he could not consent to give a vote for the divorce of the Queen, but he would give no vote on the other side.
The committee then divided on the question, "That the divorce clause stand part of the bill." Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 62: Majority for the divorce clause, 67.
List of the Minority.
Duke of Clarence.
Earls Courtoun
Archbishops York
Mount Cashel
Tuam
Romney
Dukes Wellington
Stamford
Portland
Brownlow
Beaufort
Fitzwilliam
Marquis Cornwallis
Viscounts Melville
Earls Stanhope
Sidmouth
Balcarras
Falmouth
Dartmouth
Lords Hill
Aylesford
Rodney
Verulam
Yarborough
Morton
Saltoun
Portsmouth
Bayning
Caledon
Kenyon
Lauderdale
Hopetown
St. Germains
Suffield
Aylesbury
Eldon, Ch.
Bathurst
Calthorpe
Harrowby
Combermere
Liverpool
Sydney
Mulgrave
Curzon
Westmoreland
Gambier
Macclesfield
Bishops Chester
Lonsdale
Cork
Mount Edgcumbe
Peterborough
Gloucester
Farnham
St. Asaph
Pomfret
St. David's
Whitworth
Ely
Mayo
Worcester
Winchelsea
Lord King said, that he should submit to their lordships a clause, the insertion of which in the bill seemed a matter of course, considering that the Queen was not remotely placed in the illustrious line
1727
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, November 9, 1820.
The order of the day being read, the report of the committee on the Bill was brought up by the earl of Shaftesbury.
The following is a copy of the Bill, as amended by the committee:
Bill entitled, 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.
Whereas, in the year 1814, her majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, then princess of Wales, and now Queen Consort of this realm, being at Milan in Italy, engaged in her service, in a menial situation, one Bartolomeo Bergami, a foreigner of low station, who had before served in a similar capacity:
And whereas after the said Bartolomeo Bergami had so entered the service of her royal highness the said princess of Wales, a most unbecoming and degrading intimacy commenced between her said royal highness and the said Bartolomeo Bergami; and her said royal' highness not only advanced the said Bartolomeo Bergami to a high situation in her royal highness's household, and received into her service many of his near relations, some of them in inferior and others in high and confidential situations about her royal highness's person, but bestowed upon him other great and extraordinary marks of favour and distinction, and conferred upon him a pretended order of knighthood, which her royal highness had taken upon herself to institute, without any just or lawful authority:
And, whereas also, her royal highness, whilst the said Bartolomeo Bergami was in her said service, further unmindful of her exalted rank and station, and of her duly to your majesty, and wholly regardless of her own honour and character, conducted herself
1728
Therefore, to manifest our deep sense of such scandalous, disgraceful, and vicious conduct on the part of her said majesty, by which she has violated the duty which she owed to your majesty, and has rendered herself unworthy of the exalted rank and station of Queen Consort of this realm; and to evince our just regard for the dignity of the Crown, and the honour of this nation:
We your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in parliament assembled, do humbly entreat your majesty that it may be enacted j and be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that her said majesty, Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, from and after the passing of this act, shall be and is hereby deprived of the title of Queen, and of all the prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions appertaining to her as Queen Consort of this realm; and that her said majesty shall, from and after the passing of this act, for ever be disabled and rendered incapable of using, exercising, and enjoying the same, or any of them; and moreover, that the marriage between his majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth be, and the same is hereby from henceforth for ever wholly dissolved, annulled, and made void, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatever.
The Lord Chancellor was proceeding to read the Amendments made to the Bill, when
Lord Ellenborbugh
said, that as all the modifications in the bill, consisted merely in verbal alterations he called upon those noble lords who had voted for the second reading, under an idea that the preamble and enactments would undergo a material change, to vote for the rejection of the bill.
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished to say a few words with regard to what had occurred on leaving out the divorce clause. Their lordships had been distinctly told by a noble lord of the highest political talents, and a person for whom he entertained the greatest respect, that his rea-
1729
Earl Grey
said, that to be accused of tricking and manœuvring, when he openly avowed the object of his conduct, appeared to him the most extraordinary charge ever made in that House. If tricks and manœuvres were to be referred to, what was to be said of the tricks and manœuvres of those who, in order to obtain votes for the second reading of the bill, held out an expectation, that the divorce clause would be abandoned in the committee, and that the bill would undergo very material alterations and modifications? Had it not been for that expectation, many a noble lord would not have voted for the second reading. But the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, after a very eloquent speech in support of the divorce clause, concluded with voting against it; and in this conduct he was imitated by several cabinet ministers, who had themselves introduced the clause. This, however, he supposed they had sufficient reason for doing. He agreed with the noble lord (Ellenborough) that those who voted for the second reading of the bill, in hopes of its being altered in the committee, had been grossly deceived. He hoped that those noble lords who had given a pledge that they would not vote for the bill with the divorce clause, would now redeem that pledge, and get rid of the bill altogether. The Earl of
Lauderdale
The Earl of Liverpool
said, with respect to the divorce clause, he would also ask, if any one could fairly accuse him of trick or manœuvre? Had he not, from the beginning, represented that this was not an act for personal relief, but for the remedy of a great public grievance?
1730
l.
Lord King
This amendment was also negatived.
Lord Kenyon
rose to propose an amendment. His object, he said, was to get rid of the divorce clause. Could he by any means have brought himself to con-
1731
1732
This motion was negatived, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, Nov. 10, 1820.
The order of the day being read for the third reading of the bill,
The Earl of Morley
said, that, having been one of those who thought that the course of events subsequently to the late arrival of her majesty in this country, had rendered an inquiry into her conduct absolutely necessary—having thought that it was equally necessary the inquiry should be of the nature which it afterwards had been—having thought then, as now, that his noble friends who were charged with his majesty's administration, were actuated only by an imperative sense of duty in bringing the subject before parliament, and having concurred in their measures respecting this inquiry, up to the stage
1733
1734
Lord Somers
said, that nothing would give him more satisfaction than to be able to say that in his judgment the bill ought not to pass. Sorry he was that a conviction directly the contrary was decidedly fixed in his mind. He thought it nearly impossible to doubt that the guilt of her majesty had been established, when a considerable majority of their lordships had voted for the second reading of the bill, and when many of those peers who decided against its being read a second time, had expressed strong suspicions of her majesty's conduct, while several of them had positively declared their conviction that she was guilty. It appeared to him, that several points were to be considered in deciding on this case. The first point to be considered was the positive proofs which they had of the Queen's guilt. It had been argued, that the character of the persons who had given evidence at the bar, was such as to deny them all claim to credit, and that their testimony was shown to be such, that it must be regarded as destructive to the whole charge. To him it appeared, that the direct reverse of all this had turned out to be the fact. The evidence of Barbara Kress was such, that a noble lord opposed to this measure had given it as his opinion, that she was a fair and ingenuous witness; but he had argued that she might have been mistaken. He must contend, that on every fair consideration of evidence, the testimony of Kress could not be invalidated. But after all the inquiries that had been made with respect to her character, not a single act had been proved against her. The noble lord having stated the case of Carlsruhe, and from the Minutes the Evidence given on this subject, declared that it appeared to him as strong as any evidence could be, that adultery had been committed. Bergami was seen in bed, with his arm round the neck of the princess, who was sitting on the bed, and the next day a cloak worn by her royal highness was found in the bed. What could be stronger than this? His understanding might be weak, but certainly such a fact carried conviction to his mind. He then noticed the evidence given by Kress, with respect to the stains which she had
1735
Earl Fortescue
said:—My lords; I have abstained from offering myself to your lordships in the earlier stages of this business, in the persuasion that my sentiments were delivered by my noble friends who sit near me, with much more satisfaction to myself, and with much greater impression on the House, than they would have been expressed by me. If, however, I could mistrust my own judgment in this matter, it would be because it differs from that of a noble person (lord Grenville), with whom I am not more connected by the ties of relationship, than by habits of mutual confidence, and by entire unity of sentiment. I reflect with pride and satisfaction that this is the first time that I have differed from him on any subject of great public
1736
few
the,
1737
1738
The Duke of Bedford
said, he must express his decided dissent from a measure, which was, in his opinion, "derogatory from the honour of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the nation." He had refrained from giving any vote upon the question when the bill was in a committee, because he felt that he could not conscientiously vote for it, without admitting that the Queen had been guilty of adultery and of indecency, and thereby dishonouring both her majesty and the King. It was with extreme astonishment, however, that he saw his majesty's ministers opposing the divorce clause, thus consenting to the emasculation of their own measure, and depriving it of that feature which alone could indicate their own belief in the premises. He confessed that he was quite surprised to hear the noble earl at the head of the treasury commenting upon that evidence and those premises in the way he had done, assuming as facts all that the pure, the modest, and the immaculate Demont, had been pleased to assert upon her examination. [Some signs of dissent were manifested among the lords on the opposite benches.] He understood the noble earl to argue as if he implicitly relied upon her testimony. The noble baron on the cross-bench had followed on the same side; but, if the noble lord would refer to the evidence of Dr. Holland, be would find that it afforded but the solitary confirmation of the fact relative to her royal highness's visit to the theatre St. Carlos. There was another circumstance upon which the noble earl had commented with peculiar severity; namely, that her royal highness had been guilty of the most unbecoming condescension in appearing at masquerades; on one occasion as an Automaton, and on another as the Genius of History. Now, really, in treating the subject in this manner, the noble earl appeared to know very little what was the custom of foreign courts, where it was
1739
The Lord Chancellor
said, it did appear to him, he must confess, to be totally impossible, that any man should vote for a second reading of this bill, who did not feel himself entirely convinced of the guilt of the Queen. It was not, in that stage of the proceeding, his duty to enter into any consideration of the policy of what might be to be done, should
1740
"a mensa et thoro,"
"pro salute animi"
1741
The Bishop of Chester
said, he had given his vote to the second reading of this bill upon the full but painful conviction that her majesty was guilty. As it appeared to his judgment, the crime of adultery could be proved by circumstantial evidence alone; and it also appeared to him, that in the present case, that evidence had been accumulated in a most convincing manner. If, as she solemnly protested in the name of her Maker, she were innocent, never in the annals of the world was innocence accompanied with such corroborating circumstances of guilt. He had voted against the divorce clause, because he thought it contrary to the religious precepts expounded by the Divine Teacher of Christianity. These were the motives which induced him to vote as he had done; and he wished them to be understood, in order to repel the insinuation that those who voted against the divorce clause were degrading the King. So far was this reflection unmerited on his part, that he had heard with surprise and abhorrence the abuse which had been made of the sacred name of their sovereign. One noble earl had said, that he would have thrown the Liturgy in his face. And it was with shame and horror he had heard a monarch, whose regency would bear a triumphant comparison with the proudest period of our history, compared with the most sanguinary and merciless monster that ever degraded the human form—the eternally execrated despot of Imperial Rome. Having voted for the second read-
1742
Earl Grosvenor
said, that as an allusion had been made to an expression of his, by the right rev. prelate, he begged permission to explain the phrase he had made use of. It was perfectly true, that he had used the words imputed to him; but he had done so in this manner. A rumour had prevailed—whether true or not he at the time had said he could not tell—that the supporters of ministers had given out that his majesty was the main cause of this unfortunate question being agitated, notwithstanding the decided voice of the country; and that it was the King himself who desired the archbishop to omit her majesty's name in the Liturgy. He had said at the time that he thought this rumour extremely discreditable to ministers; and, having thus stated his opinion of it, he certainly did declare, that were he in the situation of the archbishop, feeling, as he did, the evil which the erasure of the Queen's name was likely to entail upon the country, he should, sooner than strike it out from the Liturgy, have thrown the Prayer-book in his majesty's face; had he been even pressed by him so to do, which he could not believe. And he had also said, that under such circumstances, sooner than remain one of his majesty's administration, he would have trampled upon the seals of office. Such were his sentiments upon the measures; and he implored the House to consider the situation in which it would be placed, if, in decided opposition to the general sense of the country, they pressed this bill with such a majority for its second reading as 28, in a House of 223 members present. That majority could never be supposed as giving the real concurrence of the House to a bill of this nature; and unless it had the general concurrence of the House, the minister had said at the commencement of the business he thought it ought not to be pressed. The more he thought of the matter, the more decided was his impression of its obnoxious character.
Lord Erskine
should content himself with saying, notwithstanding his great re-
1743
The Duke of Grafton
said, that upon looking into the whole of the evidence, he must pronounce a verdict of Not Guilt.
The Marquis of Huntley
said, that he was satisfied of the guilt of her majesty, and should therefore vote for the third reading of the bill. The evidence of Hownam alone, was sufficient to convince him of that, and he was only surprised how the noble lords opposite could entertain a contrary opinion on the subject; and he hoped that, considering the sincerity they evinced of her majesty's innocence, they would add to it by letting their wives and daughters associate with the Queen, He was anxious not to give a silent vote upon this occasion, in consequence of the threats held out by the counsel at the bar.
The Marquis of Donegal
said, that he had closely attended throughout the whole of these proceedings. In his opinion the evidence of Majoochi and Demont, which bore the burden of the proof in this case, was inconsistent. His clear and conscientious vote was therefore against the bill.
The Bishop of Gloucester
stated, that he could not concur in the divorce clause in this bill, which, if not hostile to, was certainly inconsistent with, the spirit and tenor of the Christian morality and law. It did appear to him inconsistent with the standing order of the House on other occasions, and not according to impartial justice between the parties. This being his conscientious feeling, regarding the Divorce clause, he was compelled to vote against the third reading of the bill.
Lord Alvanley
expressed his determination to oppose the third reading of the bill.
Lord Ellenborough,
in voting against the bill, could not help making this observation:—that, among the strange peculiarities of this case, was this: that the strongest evidence of her majesty's guilt was derived from her own witnesses.
1744
The Earl of Darnley
implored those noble lords, whose opinions were yet wavering as to the expediency and policy of this bill, to step forward in this its last stage, and stay a measure so pregnant with such disastrous consequences.
The House then divided on the question, "That the Bill be now read a third time. "The numbers were:—
Contents
108
Not-contents
99
Majority
9
list of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents
CONTENTS.
Dukes of York
Aylesbury
Clarence
Bathurst
Archbishop of Canterbury.
Chatham
Harcourt
Lord Chancellor
Warwick
Dukes Wellington
Graham (Montrose)
Northumberland
Pomfret
Newcastle
Macclesfield
Rutland
Balcarras
Beaufort
Home
Marqs. Conyngham
Coventry
Anglesey
Rochford
Camden
Abingdon
Northampton
Earls Shaftesbury
Exeter
Cardigan
Headfort
Winchilsea
Cornwallis
Bridgewater
Buckingham
Viscounts Exmouth
Lothian
Lake
Queensberry
Sidmouth
Winchester
Melville
Earls St. Germains
Curzon
Whitworth
Sydney
Verulam
Hereford
Cathcart
Bishops Cork
Mulgrave
Landaff
Orford
Peterborough
Manvers
Ross
Ely
Westmoreland, C. P. S.
St. David's
Worcester
Nelson
St. Asaph
Powis
London
Limerick
Lords Harris
Donoughmore
Ross (Glasgow)
Belmore
Mayo
Meldrum (Aboyne)
Longford
Mount-Cashel
Hill
Kingston
Combermere
Liverpool
Hopetown
Digby
Manners
Mount-Edge-combe.
Ailsa (Cassilis)
Lauderdale
Strange (Athol)
Sheffield
Abergavenny
Redesdale
1745
St. Helen's
Grenville
Northwick
Suffield
Bolton
Montagu
Carrington
Gordon (Huntly)
De Dunstanville
Somers
Rous
Rodney
Saltersford (Courtown)
Middleton
Napier
Stewart (Galloway)
Colville
Gray
Stuart (Moray)
Saltoun
Douglas (Morton)
Forbes
NOT-CONTENTS.
Duke of Gloucester
Viscounts Granville
Archbishops Tuam
Anson
York
Duncan
Dukes Portland
Hood
Brandon (Hamilton)
Torrington
Falmouth
Devonshire
Bolingbroke
Bedford
Grafton
Bishop of Gloucester
Richmond
Lords Breadalbane
Somerset
Erskine
Leinster
Arden
Marquises Bath
Ellenborough
Stafford
Alvanley
Lansdown
Loftus (Ely)
Earls Blesington
Fitzgibbon (Clare)
Bradford
Morley
Bayning
Minto
Gwydir
Grey
Calthorpe
Gosford
Downey (Downe)
Romney
Rosslyn
Yarborough
Caledon
Dundas
Enniskillen
Selsey
Farnham
Mendip (Clifden)
Carrick
Carnarvon
Auckland
Mansfield
Gage
Fortescue
Fisherwick (Donegall)
Grosvenor
Hilsborough (Marquis of Downshire.)
Amherst
Kenyon
Sherborne
Delawar
Berwick
Ilchester
Ashburton
Egremont
Bagot
Fitzwilliam
Walsingham
Portsmouth
Dynevor
Stanhope
Hawke
Cowper
Sundridge (Argyle)
Dartmouth
Oxford
Ducie
Roseberry
Holland
Jersey
Grantham
Albemarle
Ponsonby (Besbqrough)
Essex
Thanet
King
Denbigh
Belhaven
Suffolk
Clifton (Darnley)
Derby
1746
Say & Sele
Dacre
Howard of Effingham
Audley
De Clifford
De la Zouch
Foley.
Clinton
During the exclusion of strangers:—
Lord Dacre
observed, that he had been entrusted with a petition from her majesty, praying to be heard by counsel against the passing of the bill.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that he apprehended such a course would be rendered unnecessary by what he was about to state. He could not be ignorant of the state of public feeling with regard to this measure; and it appeared to be the opinion of the House that the bill should be read a third time only by a majority of nine votes; Had the third reading been carried by as considerable a number of peers as the second had been, he and his noble colleagues would have felt it their duty to persevere in the bill, and to send it down to the other branch of the legislature. In the present state of the country, however, and with the division of sentiment so nearly balanced, just evinced by their lordships, they had come to the determination not to proceed further with it. It was his intention, accordingly, to move "That the further consideration of the bill be adjourned to this day six months."
Earl Grey
complained of the whole course which ministers had pursued with regard to the bill, which, after the declaration of the noble earl, could scarcely be said to be before the House, but which was still before the country, and would long live in its memory. He charged the servants of the Crown with the grossest neglect of duty, in the first instance, it listening only to
ex-parte
1747
Lord Erskine
said:—I see the fate of this odious measure consummated, I heartily rejoice at this event. My lords, I am an old man; and my life, whether it has been for good or for evil, has been passed under the sacred rule of the law. In this moment I feel my strength renovated by that rule being restored. The accursed charge wherewithal we had been menaced has passed over our heads. There is an end of that horrid and portentous excrescence of a new law, retrospective, iniquitous, and oppressive; and the constitution and scheme of our polity is once more safe. My heart is too full of the escape we have just had to let me do more than praise the blessings of the system we have regained; but I cannot praise them adequately myself, and I, therefore, prefer expressing my own sentiments in the fine language of one of the most eloquent authors of any age, Hooker, who thus speaks in his great work on Ecclesiastical Polity:—"Of Law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world: all things in heaven and earth do her homage; the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power. Both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform concert, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy."
The Duke of Montrose
declared, in the most solemn manner, that he had given his vote for the third reading of the bill on the clearest and most conscientious conviction of the Queen's guilt.
The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned to the 23rd instant.
1748
PROTESTS AGAINST ADJOURNING THE FURTHER CONSIDER ATION OF THE BILL.]
The following Protests were entered on the Journals:
I.
Adhuc
Die Novembris,
Moved, That the further consideration of the bill be adjourned to this day six months; which being objected, the question was put thereupon. It was resolved in the affirmative.
"Dissentient,
"Because no sufficient ground appears for the abandonment of the bill, founded on the charges against her majesty the Queen, which had undergone the most solemn and accurate investigation: charges in which the morality of the country was deeply interested, and on which all the Peers spiritual and temporal, who delivered their opinions, had, with very
few
"Because the abandonment of the bill, after the most profligate criminality had been substantiated by the strongest moral and legal evidence, is a measure calculated to bring into contempt, not only the character of our highest court of judicature, but that of the nation itself.
"Because we cannot observe, but with the deepest concern, extreme want of consideration for the sovereign in the dereliction of proceedings so necessarily brought on, by which a wife declared by the House of Peers to have been long guilty of an adulterous intercourse with a menial servant, and of conduct the most depraved, is to remain his Queen-consort, thus degrading the dignity of the Crown, and embarrassing the country with far greater difficulties than those which seem to have induced his majesty's government to relinquish the prosecution of the bill.
(Signed) SHEFFIELD.
NORTHUMBERLAND.
LOTHIAN.
WILLIAM (D. of Clarence.)
AYLESBURY."
II.
Adhuc,
Die Novembris,
"Dissentient,
"Because, that in a case of this nature, in which this House appears to us by its resolution to read the bill a second time, by its proceedings in the committee upon the bill and the report, and by its resolution to read the bill a third time, to have
1749
"Because this appears to us to have been the more fit in a case in which so many peers, who voted against the third reading of the bill, had declared their conviction that the guilt imputed had been proved.
"Because we also think that the House ought not, in considering whether the bill should pass, after its having been read a third time, to have been influenced by any regard to what might take place in an inquiry in the other House of Parliament as was suggested in the course of our debates, save only that we deem it to have been just, that the party accused should have had an opportunity of calling for the judgment of both Houses, when this House, proceeding by a bill of Pains and Penalties, had expressed in its resolutions a judgment unfavourable to that party.
"Because we cannot but apprehend that the resolution to adjourn the further consideration of the bill will lead to great misapprehension as to the real opinion of the majority of the peers of this House as it is to be collected from the antecedent proceedings, properly understood with reference to the question upon the guilt imputed to the party accused in the preamble of the bill.
(Signed) SHAFTESBURY.
BRIDGEWATER.
VERULAM.
WILLIAM (D. of Clarence.)"
III.
"Dissentient,
"Because it has been clearly established by undeniable evidence, and confirmed by the votes and declarations of a great majority of the House of Peers, that the princess of Wales (now Queen) did commit adultery with a foreigner, and because we know of no other tribunal where this crime against the state, and against society, can be punished, or the repetition of the offence be prevented.
"Because the failure of this bill, unaccompanied by any other legislative or
1750
WILLIAM (D. of Clarence)."
IV.
"Dissentient,
"Because the guilt of her majesty the Queen having, after the fullest investigation and consideration of the evidence adduced for and against her majesty, been made out and established to the entire satisfaction of my honour and conscience, and the bill of Pains and Penalties having in the most solemn and deliberate manner, passed through its different stages, and received the sanction of this House to the third reading, I cannot allow of its abandonment at this period of the sedulous and exemplary attendance and labours of this House, without recording my protest against a measure which involves a dereliction of the sacred duty of administering justice by this House, and which suffers the most abandoned and licentious con duct to remain, if not triumphant, at least unpunished, to the disgrace of our country, in derogation of the honour and dignity of this House, and which tends to lower the first tribunal in the world in the estimation of this nation, of Europe, and of posterity. (Signed)
Powis.
(Signed) WILLIAM
(Duke of Clarence.)"
PROROGATION.] NOV. 23. The Speaker having entered the House, Mt. Denman rose and said, that he had a message to present from her majesty. At this moment the deputy usher of the Black Rod tapped at the door, and immediately entered. About fifty members rose in their seats, and the general cry was—"Mr. Denman, Mr. Denman!" "Withdraw, withdraw!" The deputy usher stated, that the lords commissioners desired the immediate attendance of the House in the House of Peers. Cries of "Shame!" were reiterated as the Speaker advanced towards the door. Mr. Bennet said, that this affair was a scandal to the country. The Speaker proceeded to the House of Lords, where the Lord Chancellor declared the Parliament to be prorogued to the 23rd of January 1821.
INDEX
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Alvanley, Lord, 619, 1743.
Anson, Lord, 1723.
Arden, Lord, 1619.
Ashburton, Lord, 1627.
Athol, Duke of, 47, 1679, 1704.
Auckland, Lord, 631.
B
Bedford, Duke of, 1738.
Blesington, Earl of, 619, 1677.
Buckingham, Marquis of, 390, 547, 901, 904, 1724.
C
Calthorpe, Lord, 34, 678, 684, 1671.
Camden, Marquis, 1021.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 1710.
Carnarvon, Earl of, 32, 547, 585, 608, 619, 631, 649, 653, 686, 747, 884, 911, 914, 1435, 1705, 1724.
Chester, Bishop of, 1710, 1741.
D
Dacre, Lord, 1701, 1746.
Darlington, Earl of, 46, 634.
Darnley, Earl of, 36, 42, 598, 600, 611, 630, 847, 891, 917, 1020, 1707, 1712, 1726, 1744.
De Clifford, Lord, 1675.
De Dunstanville, Lord, 598, 1645.
Donegal, Marquis of, 1743.
Donoughmore, Earl of, 298, 460, 586, 648, 736, 863, 910, 1539, 1713.
Duncan, Lord, 1717.
E
Eldon, Lord,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 354, 609, 632, 898, 916, 1621, 1708, 1723, 1728, 1743.
Enniskillen, Earl of, 1671.
Erskine, Lord, 2, 39, 46, 354, 373, 376, 378, 387, 581, 585, 647, 712, 728, 747, 817, 839, 846, 864, 875, 877, 883, 890, 900, 1458, 1629, 1709, 1742, 1747.
Essex, Earl of, 1723.
F
Falmouth, Viscount, 47, 1619, 1725.
Fitzwilliam, Earl, 1714.
Fortescue, Earl, 1735.
G
Glasgow, Earl of, 1725.
Gloucester, Bishop of, 1743.
Gosford, Earl of, 1678.
Grafton, Duke of, 1743.
Grantham, Lord, 1676.
Grenville, Lord, 877, 1681.
Grey, Earl, 12, 42, 44, 45, 258, 291, 296, 298, 366, 377, 459, 545, 546, 548, 611, 628, 635, 647, 648, 685, 708, 714, 724, 815, 845, 865, 875, 883, 889, 905, 910, 1016, 1017, 1437, 1544, 1706, 1723, 1729, 1746.
Grosvenor, Earl, 456, 458, 737, 1438, 1530, 1742.
H
Hamilton, Duke of, 1436.
Hampden, Lord, 1725.
Harewood, Earl of, 909, 1538.
Harrowby, Earl of, 44, 1621, 1708, 1713.
Holland, Lord, 49, 108, 255, 257, 298, 380, 546, 599, 603, 620, 630, 915, 1021, 1438, 1724.
Howard, Lord, 1670.
Huntley, Marquis of, 1743.
K
Kenyon, Lord, 1730.
King, Lord, 745, 897, 1722, 1726, 1730.
L
Landaff, Bishop of, 1711.
Lansdown, Marquis of, 24, 25, 260, 263, 353, 354, 355, 605, 631, 681, 740, 892, 893, 900, 911, 912, 915, 1026, 1438, 1650, 1721.
Lauderdale, Earl of, 2, 7, 44, 353, 354, 367, 380, 459, 545, 546, 576, 597, 600, 617, 628, 629, 647, 648, 730, 847, 876, 884, 902, 911, 1470, 1703, 1711, 1728, 1729.
Limerick, Earl of, 904, 908, 1723.
Liverpool, Earl of, 17, 42,43,45,46, 48, 108,256, 258,260,262, 293,297,355,377,389,459, 548, 583, 604, 615, 628, 630, 663, 679,710,726, 814, 846, 876, 885, 890, 895, 901, 903, 908, 959, 1574, 1703, 1707,1714, 1729, 1746.
London, Bishop of, 1711.
Lord Chancellor [Eldon], 9, 34, 38, 39, 44, 48 299, 352, 356, 367, 372, 376, 388, 457, 458, 547, 583, 607, 609, 629, 630, 632, 635, 650, 653, 663, 671, 684, 705, 714, 723. 738, 748 816, 839, 840, 848, 864, 875, 882, 885, 892, 899, 904, 1015, 1019, 1026, 1435, 1439, 1470, 1702, 1705, 1716, 1720, 1739.
M
Manners, Lord, 735, 891, 1646.
Manvers, Earl, 908, 1725.
Melville, Viscount, 46, 460.
Morley, Earl of, 618, 1732.
Morton, Earl, 904,
Montrose, Duke of, 1747.
N
Newcastle, Duke of, 1649, 1703.
Northumberland, duke of, 1669.
P
Peterborough, Bishop of, 1719.
R
Redesdale Lord, 36, 50, 366, 389, 598, 648, 714, 738, 905, 1523, 1707,1719.
Rolle, Lord, 47.
Rosebery, Earl of, 1520.
Rosslyn, Earl of, 49, 629, 731, 899, 1689.
S
Sheffield, Lord, 1704.
Somers, Lord, 1703, 1723, 1734.
Somerset, Duke of, 1026, 1681.
Stafford, Marquis of, 1675.
T
Thanet, Earl of, 1724.
Tuam, Archbishop of, 1718.
W
Wellington, Duke of, 295.
Worcester, Bishop of, 1710.
Y
York, Archbishop of, 1709.
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Attorney General, [Sir Robert Gifford], 65.
B
Beckett, Right Hon. John, 780, 781.
Bennet, Hon. H. G. 61, 98, 772.
Bernal, Ralph, 52, 93, 776.
Brougham, Henry, 780.
C
Calcraft, John, 54, 795.
Castlereagh, Lord, 74, 94, 96, 98, 99, 101, 105, 106, 107, 766, 775, 779, 783, 786.
Chancellor of the Exchequer [Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart], 89, 800.
Clive, Henry, 774,779.
Courtenay, William, 793.
Creevey, Thomas, 51, 82, 100, 787.
D
De Crespigny, Sir William, 787.
Douglas, Mr. Keith, 92, 103.
E
Ellice, Edward, 88.
F
Folkestone, Viscount, 800.
G
Gascoyne, Isaac, 748.
Gipps, George, 776.
Gurney, Hudson, 775.
H
Heygate, Mr. Alderman, 91.
Hobhouse, John Cam, 52, 54, 804.
Hume, Joseph, 65, 98,101, 105, 106, 756, 782.
Huskisson, William, 99, 103.
L
Lennard, T. B. 90.
Lockhart, John Ingram, 751.
M
Maberly, John, 81, 99.
Moore, Peter, 85.
N
Noel, Sir Gerard, 91,101,106, 784.
O
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 51, 52.
Osborne, Lord Francis, 106.
P
Phillimore, Dr., 60.
Pole, Wellesley, 802.
R
Ridley, Sir M. W. 88.
Russell, Lord John, 750, 782.
S
Scarlett, James, 791.
Sebright, Sir John, 777.
Speaker, The [Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton], 54, 749.
T
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 749, 750, 777, 784, 787,791.
W
Whitbread, S. C. 89, 95, 97,
Wilson, Sir Robert,i8, 94, 782.
END OF VOL. III.