The Sun. — London, England, 1820-10-24 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY. THE QUEEN'S DEFENCE. [Continuation cf lesterday's Proceedings.] After the Interpreter had read the Diploma of the Order of St. Caroline, he begged to state, that he had read the date of the letter, 1816. It might be that the date was meant to be 1815. lie could not speak positively to this ; but their Lordships, on inspecting the document, might be Lest able to judge which it was. The Duke of SOMERSET wished to call Lieut. Hownam back, to ask him a few questions with respect to the tent. Earl GREY said the regular course would be to call back any witness ater the defence was closed. The Duke of SOMERSET did not press the subject. The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the transla tion of the diploma to be taken down, and in lerted in the minutes with the original. EXPENCE OF THE TRIAL. Lord HOLLAND wished to ask the Noble Lord opposite a question on the subject of the papers Lately laid before the House relative to the ex pences incurred by the present proceedings. In these documents he found an item of 18,0001. for secret service. He wished the Noble Earl to state what was meant by this, and what secret services had been performed, for which this 18,0001. should be paid. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, the sum in ques tion was marked in the way described, to indi cate that it was taken from a sum of money an nually voted on estimate by Parliament for Secret Service. From that fund up to a certain period, it had been thought right to take the sums called for to conduct the proceedings which had been instituted. The Earl of DARNLEY felt called upon, as this subject had been mentioned by his Noble Friend, to ask another question or two on those p,apers. He wished to know if these papers set forth the whole expense hitherto incurred by the proceedings of the Milan Commission, and, if the whole of the expense incurred in procuring wit,. lasses appeared in these documents. The Earl of LivEnpooL had no objection to answer the questions of the Noble Earl, and to *ay that the two items alluded to, included the whole of the expenses incurred by the Milan Commission, and by procurinr , witnesses to ap pear in behalf of the Bill, a s far' as the same could be made up, with the exception of the expenses incurred by messenjers. Earl GREY wished to know under what de partment the expenses of messengers will be found ? The Earl of LIVERPOOL replied, in the ac counts of the For e ign Department. MADEMOISELLE DUMONT. Mr. DENMAN, before the witness came to the bar, wished to state the grounds on which they called for the indulgence which they had solicit ed. It was not the intention of the Counsel for the defence to attempt to prove any particular fact. They would merely question her as to a certain conversation. If she admitted it, they would take the benefit of such admission—if she denied it, they would then be at liberty to bring evidence to contradict her. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it right to state, that the object of the Learned Counsel in recalling the witness should have been stated be fore. As the House, however, in one instance had recalled a witness under such circumstance, acid in another had seemed as if it would agree to such a course, he had little doubt that they would agree to it. The Earl of LAUDERDALE offered a few words as to the mode in which the witness should be •ex,amined. The Loan CHANCELLOR said, the rule hitherto acted upon was this :—if Counsel after examina tion in chief, cross-examination, re-examination, and examination by- their Lordships, wished to ask a question, the question had been suggested to the House, and the House had taken upon itself to put it ; acting upon this rule, the course in the present instance would be, for the Counsel to put any questions they might desire to ask through the House ; but, perhaps it would save their Lordships' time, if they were to allow the questions to be put to the witness by the Learned Counsel at once. (The witness Dumont was then put to the bar, and examined by Mr. WILLIAMS.) Q. I wish to know whether the witness knows a woman called Fanchette Martine ?—A. I do not ; I believe not. Does she know a man named Henry Martine ? I do not recollect any such name. Does she know a place in Switzerland called iVrys uge ?—Yes. The woman of whom I speak is a milliner at that place ?—I know a person, a milliner, at Mange, of the name of Marcini, not Martine. I wish to know whether she recollects seeing that person under the amended pronunciation, at Mange, in April, 1818 ?—I have seen her several times. Have you seen her in 1818 ?—I do not recol lect ; but I may have seen her in the course of that year. Do you recollect sending for her, to make a bonnet for you ?—I cannot recollect sending for her, as I did not meet her at Mauge. But did you see her on the subject of making a bonnet ?---I may have seen her ; but I cannot say yes or no to that. Do you know her ?—Yes, know her. Have you had any conversation with her on the subject of the Princess of Wales ?—As I do not recollect my seeing her in the course of that year, I do not, of course, recollect such a con versation. After you left the Princess, did you see her ? Had you then some conversation with her re• specting the Princess of Wales ?—I do not recol lect whether I had any conversation with her re lative to the Princess of Wales. Will you swear you had not ?—I do not recol lect ; it may be ; but I do not recollect. Do you recollect Martini speaking io you re lative to your Journal ?—I do not recollec(Mar tini speaking to me relative to my Journal. Do you mean to say you had not any conver sation with her on this subject ?—I do not recol lect ; it may be. Do you recollect this woman speaking to you on the subject of the Princess of Wales E.—l do not recollect. Nor do you recollect having said any thing re specting the persons who surrounded the Prin cess ?—1 do not recollect. I have often spoken about the Princess since I have left her, but not about the persons who surrounded her. Did not this person ask you about the charac ter of the Princess I—l do not recollect having any conversation with her on that subject. Do you recollect being at Mauge ?—Yes, se veral times. Now, I beg to know, whether Martini did not put this question, " whether the Princess was not a woman of intrigue ?"—I do not recollect ; I d o not at all recollect having auy such conversation on the subject. Will you swear that you had n' such conversation, or that she did not ask that ques tion; namely, whether the Princess was not a woman of intrigue ?—I do not recollect. If this question was put to me, I have not the least re collection of it. Do you recollect that you were angry on this question being put to you ?—I do not recollect this conversation ; I have not the least recollec tion of it. Did you not say ;t was all a calumny, and that it was the Princess's enemies who spread such rumours against her character ?—I don't recollect it ; I do not recollect any thing like it. Will you swear you did not say so ?—I will not swear it. It may be ; but I have not the least idea of it. Before I was sworn (I would be put upon my oath that) I never had such a conversation to my recollection. Will you swear you never had a conversation to that effect ?—I have not the least idea of such a conversation ; I have no recollection of it. Did you not say to this Madame Martini that, at the time the Princess of Wales left England, she was surrounded by spies ?—I could not have said it, because I never saw any spies about her. IVill you swear you never said it?—l do not recollect it. But I understood you to say, you coulri not have said it, because you never saw any.spies about her 2—l do believe I never said so at all. But will you swear you never said it ?—f mill not swear it ; but I do believe I never did hold such a conversatioa. Again--" that the most simple actions of ltsr life were always misinterpreted do nct re collect such a conversation at all. it is a very long conversation. Have you a bad memory ? will you swear that the conversa tion, or any part of it, never passed .?-1' cannot swear what I do not recollect ; I have not any idea of it. Do you recollect being on a visit at Madam Jaccroit's at Mange ?—Yes. Whell was that have been there several Were you there hi 1818 have been there several times after t left the service of the Priit cess of Wales. - Were you there in the year 1818, I ask you ? I do not recollect being - there in that year. Do you not recollect a bonnet being altered for you at Madame Martine - ?----I do not at all recollect this conversation. Did not Madame Martini say, " that as you were about her person, you mast know all about her ?" I have not the least recollection of it. Did not Madame Martini ask whether there had not been indecency in the Princes of Wales's conduct do not recollect it at all. Did she not use these words, or words to that effect ?—I cannot swear it ; I do not recollect it at all. Will you swear that Martini did not ask you if you saw any thing unchaste in the conduct of ,the Princess ?—I do not recollect. Will you swear that you did not reply, if not in these words at least to this effect My God, no; it i s impossible. There does not live a more chaste woman than the Princess ?"—I do not remember having any conversation of this kind with Martini. Will you swear that you did not say this in a conversation with Madame Martini ?---I do not recollect that I did. Was such a question put to you by Madame Martini ?—I do not recollect such a question ; but if this question took place, I -do not believe I made such an answer. Did you not also observe, that in all the perse secutions of the Princess, she had no friend but the late King ? The LORD CIIANCELLOR.-The manner in which this question has been put is extremely important, if it be put down as the examination of the Lords. Mr. WILLIAms—Ask the witness whether she she did not say to this Madame Martini, that in all her Persecutions, she (the Princess) had no friend but the old King do not recollect. Mr. WlLLtims.—Does your Lordship think it fit that the witness should be asked whether she will swear that she did not say so ? The Loan CHANCELLOR—I see no objection. W ill the witness swear she did not say so ? I will not swear that I did or did not ; but I do not believ e I ever said so. Was not the witness again at Mauge in the month of November, in the same year ?—I have been several times at Mange. Has she any recollection whether or not she via e s n at Maug e i n N ovember, ISI9 ?—I may have been there that month, but I do not exactly re collect. I was there either at the end of Novem or the begi nn i ng bet. ) of December. Ask the witness if Martini did not ask her whether the Princess was not greatly afflicted at the loss of the Princess Charlotte ?—I do not re collect such a conversation. Will she swear that Martini did not put that question to heri—l cannot positively swear it ; but I have not the least Wealiel it. Ask witaiivr' the *witnss"did'uot liran;i'ver, say, " Yes, it was very natural, as she had lost every thing in losing her child ?"—I have not the least idea of such a conversation. I wish the witness to be asked whether she be lieves that such a conversation took place with Madame Martini do not believe that any such conversation took place. I wish the witness to be asked whether, after the death of the Princess, she was not asked whe ther her Royal Highness would not make some diminution in her household ?—I have not the least idea of such a conversation. I assure you, I do not recollect it. Will you swear did yGt take place ?—I will not positively swear; but I have not the least idea - - of it. Where was the witness when she was iirst put upon her oath ? The LORD CHANC2LLOR.—Has she said in this examination that she was put upon her oath ? Mr. Wir..u.tins.—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCiLLon.---Read what she said. Mr. BitouonAti.—Does no', your Lordship think that independent of what she may have al ready said, this question ought to be put ? The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if it, were meant to call a witness to contradict this evi dence, it was extremely material that some ex planation should be given as to the view with which the question was meant to be proposed. Mr. J3itouonAm.—She has in her evidence used the very terms. Thy following answer was then read from Mr. Gurney's notes : " I will swear that before I was put upon my oath, I never said any thing of what passed in the house of her Royal Highness." Q. When was it you were, for th,l first time, put upon your oath ? The question and answer in which the witness alluded to having been put upon her oath was then read to her, and she was asked, What do you mean by before you were put upon your oath ?—I mean before I was ex amined and put upon my oath at this bar. Mr. Wx.r.r..was—l do not wish to put any fur ther question. Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Q. Before you were examined here at this bar, had you been examined any where else ?—A. 1 had been examined at Milan. Had you ever stated any thing about her Royal Highness before you were examined at this place—in this House ?—Was it after I had been examined at Milan, or before ? At any time before you were examined here, had you said any thing about her Royal High ness 2-4 have spoken often of her Royal High ness before I was examined at Milan. What does the witness mean by saying, that before she was put upon her oath, she never said any thing of what passed in the house of her Royal Iligimess?—The meaning is, that I never said any tiling of her conduct with Courier Bergami. DO you mean that before you was sworn in this place, that you never said any thing respect ing the conduct of her Royal Highness and Ber gami ?--I made my deposition at Milan. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that if he were intitled, he wished to ask the witness some par ticulars relatively to the journey from Rome to Senegaglia. The Loan CHANCELLOU gave it as his opinion, that the re-appearance of the witness was on an especial point, and unless the question contem plated by the Learned Solicitor had connection with what she had now deposed, it could not be put.--The question was not put. Lord LAUDERDALE.-What day did you leave her Royal Highness at Pesaro?—ln November, but I do not know the day. How long after you left her service was it th a t you wrote the letter to her Royal Highness ? On the same evening, on my arrival at Rimini. Had the report of the death of the Princess Charlotte of Wales arrived at Pesaro when you were discharged ?—No. Witness was ordered to withdraw. Mr. BROUGHAM proposed that Dumont should be present, while he examined a witness ; per haps it might assist her recollection. The proposition was objected to, and Dumont withdrew. FANCIIETTE MARTINI sworn.—Examined by Mr. WILLIAMS. Q. Are you the wife of Henry Martini ? A. Yes. Of what place ?—Mauge. Do you keep a milliner's shop there ?—Yes. Do you know Louisa Dumont ?—Yes. How long have you known her?—From the time she was at Mange, when she was quite young. %Vas that before she was in the service of the Princess of Wales ?—A long time before. What age was Dumont when you first became acquainted with her?—When I knew her first, she was about 16 I think. Had you frequently seen Dumont at Mange ?—From the moment I first became acquainted with her, I saw her very often. Did you see Dumont at Mange, at any time in 1810 ?—I saw her in the month of April. On what occasion, and where did you see her ?—At the country house, when I was called to do some work. Who foi ?—For Mademoiselle Dumont. Before that time had you seen any Journal of Mademoiselle Dumont ?-1 had read it. When you saw Dumont on the subject of work, did you converse with her on the subject of the Journal or of the Princess ?—y es. Did you ask her any questions respecting the conduct of the Princess of Wales ?—The first time I spoke to her about her voyage, because 1 have seen her Journal. I speak of the tints when you had the work to do fur Du mont.?-1 understand. Did you tli;n1171 '' ''''' conversation with Dumont, and ask her any questions respecting the conduct of the Princess of wales generally I—Yes. What was the question that you put to Dumont. Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to this question. He was at a loss to conceive how the answer either way could be made evidence. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he tendered the evidence as a contradiction of the evidence of Duntont, and not as gene rally affectin g the credit of Dumont. The S OLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the evidence of this witness being received as a contradiction of the evidence of Dumont.. Mr. BROUGHAM reques t e d th e s h or t-b an d write tory several questions, and th e answers t o th em by Burnont,cocci she swore th a t s h e never h a d ma d e any d ec l ara tions r. ing the conduct of the Princess of Wales and Berga' 9l ' to her heist; examined on oath. Mr. WILLIAMS con t en d e d t h a t th e e y ttoo,liidence o awt "e received, f o r th e asser ti ons of Dumunt . that she newer , 5 tc thing - like levity in th e condrift of her Royal -Higl°\% - e i wards Bergarni, and th a t th e Wh o l e were 'nothing bil t r e n . cl ports of her R o y a l Hi g l ines s'Yould not Only in contradiction of Diunwit's evidence?b ut " favour of the Queen. j nd c' Lord ERSKINE. spoke in support of the q uestion, a lea dia tended that it wa s a p roper quest i on f or t h e purpose °icousil to a contradi c ti on o f D umont. Th e o bj ect i on of thetip for the Bill appeared to his Lordship to confound th e 0., jo. tion between th e a d m i ss ibili ty and the effect of the e ''i c ar now offered. He con ce i ve d th a t at a ll even t s it was admissible, though its effect would be for the after eon s tion of their Lordships. The Earl of it sLAUDERDLE opposed the puttin° 7 'f ae r question. He conceived would lead to inadmissipl dence. a w, The LORD CHANCELLOR said, their Lordsb l P f not at pres e nt c a ll e d u p on t o d ec id e upon t h e j us tice ri ° o Noble arid Learned Friend—(A laugh)—but to pro tt to the admissibility o f th e e yid once now propose°bu Queen's Counsel. His L or d s hip sa id,l may b e m istake d ' it , I I consider it e v id e n ce b roug h t to a ff ect the genera l ° e v e' Dumont, and therefore admissible.—(Cries of hea r, and Go on.) bl What question did you p u t t o D umont ? — I sa id I t h . ou i g ar ,, the Princ e ss was a Lib er ti ne ; th at was t h en my frank ° P ln i , r cei What answer did Dum o nt g i ve t o th at ?—She Put h in a great passion, and said it was nothing but caluatt ° ' vented by her en e mie s in or d er to ruin her. ed of Did she say any thing more She said all that was B° tbs the Princess ; that she never observed any tiring ab °- Princess but what was good. ?.—Sire Did you hear Du mon t sa y an ythi ng a b out sp i es ?.— S ire iss• me that ever sinc e th e P r i ncess h a d qu i tted England s°B been always surrounded with spies. d i. interpreter. She said som e thi ng more .—A n d that er. t th. simplest action whi c h s h e did was misinterpreted, tr,,ies Princess knew very w e ll th a t s h e was 'surrounded w'"l`os9 but that she did nothing but what she was willing that world might know of. I I' Did you ever observ e t o Thiroont, that as she had be e " c' ways about the pers o n o f th e Princess, she must be bc e o joit quainted with her a c ti ons ?—I on l y reco ll ect w h at I hale said. Did you inquire of Dumont any thing about the chait i .. ti o le cf 5 the Princess:—Yes; i asked her whether she had e rr ' served any thing of the Princess. What did she answer ?—She answered no, she Dev e i , served any thing, and it was i mposs ibl e to he more Op than my Princess. Do you remember any thing being said by Dumont ab ° o t : the old King?—She said, i n conversat i on, that t h e O ld il was the only support the Princess had. 13a" You have upon several occasions seen Dumont, you said ; did Dumont know you well I—Yes. Do you remember seeing Dumont again in 1818?-- - Y d. About what time I—ln the month of November. Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. to ot Q. What leads y o u t o remem b er t h at t hi s conversation to place, in parti c ular, i n tBlB ?—A. B ecause I saw h er dePna' eel in the public Papers; then I showed my indignation at : having said what sh e h a d t o me , an d g i ven suc h d epos itia That is no answer. Why do you know that the coO r a r k cation took place in 1818 ?—B ecause s h e emp l oye d r ue m e l t , tering a hat, and sh e t oo k it f rom me on t h e ee d o f AY 1818, as it appears by my day-book. Was that the year that your husband fell into embarrinlea circumstances I g ir (Objected to, as it assumed that b e was i n em b arr assed cumstanees.) Was your husband in that year, in embarrassed circ'a'' stances ?—No. Do you mean to swear that h e was no t a bankrup t th° year ?—Eh moo Dieu ! Oui—(Loud laughing.) How fa: is Borgi from Coinshra?—A league. How often I) ave you seen Dumont ?—I have seen her maps times, hut spoken to he; only twice. How often did you see her in t 817 ?—Not at all. How long was it before that period that you saw be': o f I did not sec her before; I knew she was in the count'' , the neighbourhood, but did not speak to her before. 81 0? Did you ever see h e r o n a ny occas i on b e f ore A pr il, I sod —I saw her before she was in the service of the Princes') I saw her right days before I did the work for her. When did yon see Dumont before she entered the ge r e t of her Royal Highness ?-1 have seen her many thug' Mauge; she came to my warehouse to buy goods. Did the acquaint ance ar i se b y h er coming to buy ge ‘ --$ your shop?—Yes, Can you recollect the first time she came to buy goo. -Ale your shop?—When she was at l‘latige learning to do ne e " work with the Demoiselles Reg - ard. When was that ?—Mademoiselle was then about fifteen sixteen, as I stated. b og As I du not know how old D umon t i s , I want to k no ut p a long it is ago ?—lt was when .Dumont was very young/ $ she was learning to make hats. How long is it since cannot say. i 5 0 Do you mean to swear th a t y ou d o no t k now if i t w a s or ten years ago ?—Yes, I cannot say. Can you say if it is three years ago or ten ?—I cannot te t t i ,; I know nothing about it : the Demoiselles may be written and they can give you information about it. tlr Question repeat e d.—l canno t swear w h at Id o not I.ll° and what I do not recollect. Who was present at tlou time the convers a ti o n w ith Du el Ont took place ?—The two sisters, the Demoiselles Jacquera u ' Where are they ?—One is at Nimes. Did this conversation take place at the house of Mad° seise .Jacquerau ?—Yes. Did the conversation t a k e pl ace un d er such circumsta4(; that Madem o i se ll e J acquerau must h ave heard it 1- - h t 0 1 heard almost the whole of it ; th e y were go i ng i n an d na g o f the room alt erna t e ly, an d mast reco ll ect the greater pooe it : there are several particulars they must recollect, bets they found fault with my observations to Dumont. t tha t When were you examined first as to what passed a- g 0 conversation I—Do you mean examined by those Gentle p who came to Switzerland. Yes.—About a fortnight ago. se Who were those G e ntl emen ?—I canno t remem b er , bec" 4, they are English names. Was a copy taken of your deposition ?—Yes. Did you put it on paper at all ?—No. ' Who did you com e over t o E ng l an d w i t h ?—Wi t h Mr.vi"-„ed? Did you come al o n e , or did an y tither person accompaol l l3, I would not travel alon g th e p u bli c roa d s w i t h out my Ilu aw,a- to What agreement have you m a d e or y our h us b an d, .- 1 ,0 what compensation y o u are t o h ave ? —ply husband ha s ot nothing to do with that ; th e G en tl emen sa id t h e G ove rrOn of this no s cousntury would indmnify me. hese Ham been menti e & oned ? No, as I didn't know t o Gentlemen I could n o t t r u s t t o th e i r wor d s; b eca use years ago an Englishman, called Addison, occasioned ft ` ow loss of 50 louis ; o n thi s accoun t th e y h ave d epos i te d o ne drels d po tha u t o 1001 .t ds a a to he bank paid er's, to yo as secuu? —lrity.t cannot be paid t o without the ord e r o f th ose G en tl emen ; it was pu t there security r what is just and fair hieing you done bme. Then d fo o you mean to swear o came to td~ country no promise has been made to you of any kind ? no y bod, I swear it ; I speak the exact truth. Have you received nothing ?—I have received 701. 'n er •Jed on account, because there is a law suit which will be de c ' sr oi against me on the 2411 i of next month, if I am no t there; ,da not knowing how long I a m t o rema i n i n L on d on , and not leave my affairs without being paid something. Besides this, were your travelling expenses paid ?--"" Gentlemen paid thern for me. 6e ' Did you travel post I—Yes; for this day week we left noa, at four o'clock in the afternoon. re, h a t Tell me how much, as a compensation for c o ming he 0 4,at expect to re c eiv e ?—A s m y w h o l e d epen d ence i s upon act this Government may cho o s e t o g i ve , I canno t say f. t any particular sum. We left our affairs in strange P a with three journeyvvornen in the shop. Then you have no expectation of any precise sum 1- 4 I ' s' no promise ; they said to m nthing about it. est' r ' Where tlo you live here no e w o ?—We arrived here late day, at midnight. We have been placed somewhere, and I am now. Re-examined by Mr. WILLIAMS. Q. Remind her that she has been asked as to the tile sl if had a particular conversation with Dumont; and ask teethe she had only one conversation with h e r o n t4e subject 0 3 01 Pt incess of Wales?—A. Yes, I hav e s een h er feveral tiunoc, I told you that she came to m e at Jacquerau's very frolOrau's How soon after that conversati o n at Madame Jacqu e f Div on the subject of the Prince s s. w as it th a t you heard mold's departure ?—My conversation t o ok place on th e of April, and eight days before I beard of her going- Jac' Ask her if she ever had any conversation with Madame querau with respect to Dumont The Soucrroit-GENERA L objected to this relating to a conversati o n b e t ween t wo p e rsons,whic il ‘" not be evidence. of o°l Mr. WILLIAMS said, he only ask e d as to tle COI Cpl, lbla, • sp., t *4; coti l lits s 1 di ilthl Catli b tne ab e th e 1114 new hdd t.l Pre' wttii tiess 1 I,