The Sun.
London, England, 1820-08-31 00:00:00

[Morning Herald.]

One great subject usurps public interest at
this moment, and that of all others is the most
unfit for observation. Pending judicial proceed-
lugs, it has-been the usage of the pressto abstain
from obServations upon evidence of innocence or
guilt, up to the present trial Of we may so call
it, -of the Queen)—the case of all others, in
which the violation of usage, justice, and deco.
rum, might have been least expected. This case,
so iniportant as a puhlic question, and in which
the parties immediately concerned are so illus.-,
trious, has not only, been the first in which the
abuse, has been' committed,. but has been pre-
judged and agitated with an indecency, which,
future abuse cannot be conceived to surpass.;
We: 'wish to. `:behold . the Queen's. innocence'
triumphantly-established, and therefore. we have
contended for every.legal right and legal facility,
analogoui or essential, which seemed to us cal-
culated to =serve he'r MajeSty''S. just defence. But
here we feel it our duty to stop, and to regard
the evidence as sacred and inviolable to every
touch but that of the agents...and functionaries of
public justice. It is shameful to bias the public
mind against the•lllUstrious Accused. But is it
not equally unwarrantable to give a presumptive
verdict upon imperfect examinations, to heat and
irritate, and envenom the public feeling, and to
outrage the usages of jUstice,' from motives of in-
terest, hatreds or perhaps overweening conceit?
Without obserVation, then, we refer the Reader
to the various evidence heard yesterday at the
Bar-of the Lords.

il)ruish Press.]

-Only three witnesses were examined yester-
-41, of. whorn the W
,most remarkable as Ma-
dame.Purnont,
,reninte de. chambre to the Prin-
cess. • This is the very intelligent and sharp-
w itted Lady alluded, to in the Attorney-General's
statement, who perceived the agitation of her
Royal Mistress on the night of the masquerade
in Naples, while :yet. she was guilty only in
thought. . This Lady's evidence not being com-
pleted, it would be premature to make any
marks-upon it. Before
:silo was called, a mason;
named Ragazzioni, and Paolo Agioni, the under
cook in the Princess's family, deposed to the fa-
miliarity with whiCh Bergarni was treated by her
Royal Highness. The former of these witnesses
'gave liis testimony with such inconvenient, and it
Might perhaps be added, with such suspicious ra
piditv, that the • Solicitor-General occasionally
found it
.necessary to restrain his impetuosity,
and Cause him to retrace his steps. Ile very
plainly shewed, as indeed he Confessed, that he
bad.been examined ky 41te,3lilan Conn/14,0'0n. He
had seen the Princess perform a part in a play,
in which Bergarni also performed. This circum-
stance, it will be remembered, formed a promi-
nent feature in the Attorney-General's narrative
as a proof of the Royal defendant's guilt. 'We
prestime that,the Attorney-Ge!teral never perused
Madame "de Stael's exquisite picture of Italy in
her novel of Corinne, or he would never have
dwelt upon scenic representations in Italy by
Ladies of rank, as offering to delicate minds an
inwesSion of guilt in those who bear a part in

The' factious prints yesterday exulted at what
'they were pleased to call the " Ministerial- dis-
memberment," whiCh for a "moment placed the
LOrds Liverpool arid Harrowhy in opposition to
the Chancellor. Their joy, we apprehend, will
be very short-lived. The public in general will
giVe all these Noble Persons credit for acting
from the purest dictates of conscience, the Lord
Chancellot in adhering to those strict legal prim.
ciples .with which he is so profoundly convent,
satit,:and.jhe other two Noble Lords for the
liberality with which they acquiesced In grant-
ing her. Majesty an indulgence, justified, as they
conceived,-: by the peculiar circumstances of her
case. It is••boldly asserted; that the power of
resuming the cron;-exathination when lie pleased
was conceded to Mr. 13-rotigliain as matter of
right: on the contrary, it was expressly granted
as an huhtige)ice under the peCuliar circtim.
stances of the ease.'''" It is impossible that there
can hate been any thing approaching toward dis-
union between' the Members of the Cabinei; on a
mete question of indulgence; for even those who
may regard the precedent as dangerods to the
'future practice of the LegiSlature, cannot but
render justice7to the liberal feelings in which it
originated, .and rejoice in the advantages which
her Majesty 'personally may derive from it in
the conduct of her defence. The country will
see with Some surprise, after what we have heard
of.; the limitation of her Majesty's pecuniary re-
sources, the very large scale on which her Coun-
sel frame their demands for money froM the
Treasury.—The following is a copy of their last
application
We hereby certify, that it appears to us to be necessary
.that a further stun of Ten Thousand Pounds should he forth-
with advanced to NI% Vizmin, to be applied nmaids the ex-
petters of her MAJETY's defence now pending in Parliament.
" Dated this 26th day of August, 1820.
(Sigilcd) H. BROUGHAM; •
STEPHEN LUSHINGTON.

THOMAS DENMAN."
Here - then is a: demand for no less a sum than
ten thousand' pounds in addition to m hat had
been received before. We can state
.positively
that all the money for which her Majesty's
Counset had previously- applied on her behalf
was instantaneously.. granted : and they
formed that under the regulations of which they
thernselveS aPpioved-no money that they might
reqUisre would be refused. WhilSt we are on the
topic of money, it is impossible not to advert to a
fact that appdared two days ago on an examina-
tion before the Lord Mayor, when the printer of
a most seditious and inflammatory placard was
'brought before his Lordship. This placard was
directly addresSed to the soldiers, and after ex,
horting then' to support the rights of the Queen;
called on them'to remember Spain and • Naples,
and support the rights of their country. The
Culprit confessed that he had:printed and distri-:
buted no less than 20,0.00 copies of this infamous
alid treasonable coinposition, and
.that he was
paid for them by some person, whom he would'
not name. That the villains who,
.are at. the
bottom of this diabolical plot to involve the coun-
try in Civil war inay. be dragged to light, and
consigned to the severest punishment, must be the
wish of every honest man in the kingdom ; and
nobody ought to be more indignant at the base
use which is thus made of the Queen's name, than
her Majesty's most sincere friends.

[The Times.]

. -
The anomalous proceedings against the Queen
have given rise to certain derivative anomalies,
which in other times would be viewed with' inde-
scribable astonishment. We have now a Minister
acting
with colleagues by whom he has been
de-
serted,
opposed, and outvoted not in the secrecy
of the Cabinet, but openly, in -the. face of Parlia-
ment, before the whole Country. 'We have a
Jude conducting an examination according- to
rules which himself has declared to be contrary
to law and likely to defeat the ends of Justice.
We, have
Ambassadors marshalling, paying, and
dragooning witnesses to give testimony against
their Queen, with the experience that her life
and honour had before been attacked by suborna-
tion, and that she had •triumphed over her
enemies.: She, whose fame-'sustained and re=
pulsed .the attack of English evidence is now pes-
tered (for we can give their.efforts no stron..er a
name) by Italian accusers. A plot got up and
nurtured at home failed, and-one imported from
-to succeed. We have a people
biariotnaoadltv. stesdepgx
eii:ode:ed
bt;d,
Government to be most indig-
ings, and a Government hating
the people for their loyalty and affection to their
Queen.
\Ve have one House of Parliament pur-
suing an investigation from documents which the
other House refused to open or look at—one
House supplicating the Queen, with the most du-
tiful humility, to recede, for heave-sake, • from
her just rights, in the same cause which the other
House is prosecuting againsther by a 13111 of Pains
and Penalties.. We have an Act in progress
which is to repeal.the Jaw of God, and abrogate
the doctrines of the Gospd on the sacred rite .of
marriage ; and the Bishops of a Christian Church
do hot Preach or address their llocks,.agaitist
We have Italian traders put into better_pay thah
British Admirals of the Fleet, for taking, or
having forced upon them, to their loss, the func-

e

tions of witnesses ;' and witnesses living other
in herd.i', like voters at an election, at tit& e"...4lence
of the candidate. When will these prodigies
cease? The public begin most ardently to-Wish
that the CQmuions had-not adjourned for s9.long
a time—or that -the period•of their re-assetnbling
were now nearer—relief being expected front
some resolution or step of tlleirs:'-"Wethope
much' froth the energy of the LbWer louse,
because, in truth, the state of the :nation,
with respect to the unhappy affair now
agitation, leaves much to hope for ;. and from
the course of the examination, which has yet
proved nothing, the character of the'wifnesses,
and the general state. of feeling 'in the Country,
we even expect that something" will he-done.—
The effect.of a successful examination against the
Queen would, we will-venture to say, liaye,beett
,to induce the Nation to suspend its general -testi
monies of al regard towards her, at least fill the-
other side were heard, and the aspersions
off :- but- it appears, that though 'myriads—we
might say millions—have addressed her 'Ma,
jesty,:the number and importance of the addresses-
'by.no means-cease or detline. The sartiejot:triials
throughout the metropolis and the cOnntry-con-_
tain in. one column tire filthy "details of. -ffise-
Italian witnesses against the 'Queen; and lir the
nexttlie affectionate addresses of British*Subj-ects,
,expressive of
,the increasing regard of the niffron.
This could not be_ the case if tlid eVidenikid,for
the prosecution, Coming 'forth before that for the
defence is known, made any impression What-
eVer to the 'detriment of her Majesty. The Morals
of the nation may be injured by the daily reports
in tire journals, `but its faith 'cannot be shaken.
It is too well known what her; Majesty sUfr.red
before from iconspiracy against• her life as well
as her honour.

PRO\"[\CIXL JOI~}RNriJ ~

; ;•-•
We have often had occasion to eb-servC, that
the Editors of Provincial Journals are in general
moraliberal; -as well as more enlightenea 14.-crn
most of tliose of the Metropolis, and one' groat
advantage, as we before remarked, is that ,they
have snore leisure to reflect, in being remote from
the vortex of Party and prej.;•lice. The fdllow=
ing brief but pertineut yiew of the present state
of affaits is taken from The Leeds Intelligences
of Monday last) awell-lq loyal and judicious
J0i1111111.:

,1

" Thoimportant trial of the-QuEEN-nave going
on at Westminster, occupies so great a .share. of
the public attention, that we have:appropriated
as much room to the insertion of .the details at; we
could possibly devote to that purpose. We shall
offer no comments on the evidence, being pi‘r-
suaded,. that the ends of substantial justice-will
be best obtained, by leaving the public to foxy
theii own unbiassed:judgments from. the, state-
ments- of the witnesses. Much as we rekaet,
that the Royal Family of England''shotila. he
disgratUd by the publication of such heinou's
charges as those which form the subject 'Of thp
prOceedingssin'this case, -against. one of its them,
•bers, we yet cannot agree with those of our con-
temporariesf who are of bpinion,.that the inquiry
should have been " nipped in the, bud," or with
those who:argue, that it ought never to h4ye beet►
instituted.—When the 'Queen came tollnglmd,
-and demanded a full and absolute recognition:of
her rights—when shespurned all -compromise aril
refused all offers of accommodation—Ministers
would have forfeited their duty to their Sove-
reign, and to their Country, had they hesitated
in, bringing Atrthe proof the truth or falsehood
of the . accusations made against her. If she,-4s
innocent—if she, can establish that innocence,-,
Aet'her enjoy, as she otight,her honours. and dig
nities, pot only .without reproach, but.. gracod.
with the 'need of the people's approving voice.—
But, should she- bt: guilty—never let that Throtk,
which was honoured by the virtues of a Charlotke,
be disgraced by:the vices of a Caroline. -;
" Our Readers must be convinced, from the
proceedings before the Lords,that the fears; whe7
ther real or pretended,' expressed on the partvof
the Queen and ler advocates, that her Majesty
would not have a fair trial, were' utifoUnded ; anti
they will see with pleasure that their LoTdshipi
have, on the motion of .the Lord Chancellor,
passed a Resolution for the purpose of ‘vaiyin4
their Privileges, in case any prosecution Should
be commenced against any of the witnesses, for
the evidence they may give in support of the
Bill .now. 'before the. House. Their Lordships'
conduct is the beA refutation of the .c.alumniis
with which. they have. been assailed since the
commencement of unfortunate business."

THE GREAT TANDEM MATClL—This.mktch,
which drew together many sporting characte6.,
took lace yesterday, over a circle of four
miles,. at Attleton, on the Ipswich Road.
Captain 'Rawlinson, for a stake of 300 guinea,
undertook , to drive two horses, tandem, thir:
teen miles in two hours, and to lose a minute
for every break from the trot, He had lately,
purchased the lea4ler for 10()-;g,4ineas. The per-. 4
formano,was,-;gonsidered a great one, and Time";
was backed freely. Allowing- a .minute for th..
leaderl?roking into.a,gallop in going the eigh,th
mile, the hazardous match 'was won by 16 seconds'.
4.15. The Captain offered to
batlehis wheel horse to do 14 miles in one hour;H
singly.• -

PARLIAMENT,

Tt;OUSE OF LORDS, WEDNESDAT, Aua. 30.

THE QUEEN.
.ICuritr-:,Litation of the Proceedings of Yesterday.]
The following is the conclusion of the exami-
i•.tit'.on of Bartoteal() ..11agarell, or Miardi, writer
director of the Princess's Gardens :
- • Cross-examined by Mr. TINDAL.
WAS first applied to on this matter bya personrs
hosß name he does not know, in February, 1818,
ighteen months ago. The person told witness
that he Must go to Milan. Went to Milan ac-
cordingly to the house of the Advocate Vilma-
cart. Saw there, besides Vilmacarti, two or
three persons he did not know. Was told these
two or three persons were Englishmen. Heard
afterwards that one of them was Colonel Brown,
and the other Mr. Powell. Was examined before
these persons. His examination was taken down
is writing, and he was. made to sign it. Had he
known he was to come before a Tribunal he
would not have done it. lie also swore to it ;
but not on the cross. They only told him to tell
the truth whether for or against the Princess.
Received, to pay his expences going to Milan,
20
francs, but was one franc out of pocket. Left
Italy to come here, on the 29th June, with twelve
other persons, all of whose names he does not
know. The wife of Majocci was one of them.
The person who first told him he must come over
to England was one Rastalli, a man who had been
in the service of the Princess.
Q. Do you know why Rastalli quitted the
Princess's service ?—A. I do not know.
Did you knew Rastalli while he was in the
Princess's service knew him before—when
I: was at Rome.
Recollect yourself. Do you not know that he
was dismissed from the Princess's service for
stealing corn ?—(Some Noble Peer objected to
this question ; but it was put.)—l know nothing
about it.
But who spoke to you to come to England be-
sides Rastalli ?--Colonel Browne.
Did Rastalli take you to Colonel Browne ?
Rastalli came to tell me I must go. On the 27th
June I received a letter which obliged me to go
to 'Milan.
What agreement did Rastalli or any other per-
son come to with you for corning here ?
M'r. PARKE objected to the question in this
shape. His Learned Friend had no right to as-
sume that any agreement had been made.
Mr. BROUGHAM contended that it would be a
-new rule in cross-examination if such a question
were not allowed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR decided that in strict-
ness the question could not be put.
. Was any agreement made between you and
Rastalli for coming over here ?—There was not.
Was any agreement made between you and
any body else ?—f never made any agreement.
What was your occupation when you left
Ittly ?—A. writer.
• • ,A.m Ito understand that you made no agree•
aent with any body on the subject of your corn-
ingfiere ?—I made no agreement with any one.
Was any promise made to you that you should
receive any thing for your trouble ?—None.
Then have you left Italy and your business
without any promise of compensation ?—They
.gfive me no promise of compensation.
Have you seen Petruzzio since you came here?
—I do not know him.
Have you seen Majocci ?—I have.
• Has Majocci told ,you how he was examined
• 'here ?—Tie has told me nothing particular.
.Have you never spoken to him on the subject ?
---4tajocci and I were talking together, and he
told me if I went up stairs I should see how many
people there -were.
Did he not tell •you that you would see two
-sets of Counsel, one on your left hand another on
your right.?--lie did not.
IT.as o other person. put that in your head ?
Nobody.
;Did Majocci dine with you yesterday ?—Yes.
And sup ?—Yes.
Alas that. been the case every day since you
canoe to England ? Have you lived together every
day since you came to England ?—No.
Nave you seen him most days have seen
• birn since the time I came here.
You have stated that you saw the Princess and
Bergami in an open carriage on the banks of
the Lake-of Come—Are there not many villages
and houses surrounding the Lake of Como ?
Yes, villages and houses.
Is there not a great traffic backwards and for-
*Ards on that. Lake ?—Yes.
Is there no road round the Lake ?—There is
. • a road, a featpath for the cocntry people.
But is there-not a regular intercourse carried
on from one side to the other by boats.?—There
*ere always boats passing to and fro, carrying
wood, charcoal, and other things.
Was the, carriage whiCh you describe as that
•; • in which you saw the Princess and Bergarni an
open carriage ?—lt was act open carriage, a kind
of small chair.
What is the size of the Lake of Como?--It
may be a voile or a mile and a half broad.
What is its length ?—I cannot exactly tell ; I
know the distance from one town to another ; it
way lie sixty or seventy miles long.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Paulo Raggozzoni was called back for re-ex-
amination.
The Loan CHA.scr.r.r..ort ordered that part o
the examination to be read over to the witness
which related to whether he had been examined
since he came to England.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, the witness
bad never said that he was not examined-in Eng-
land ; but that he, had not 'conversed with any
body on the subject.
The former questions and answers we then

read.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, the best and
shortest way would be to ask the witness if he
tad ever been examined in England.

The Lonn CHANCELLOR then directed the fol-
lowing questions to be put.
Q. I)oes the witness mean to say, that he ne-
ver was examined in England previous to his ap-
pearing here this mornin?•?—A. Some.versons
took me into a room, and asked me if I hod said
so and so, and I answered, yes;',"...-:\ •
When was that do not kriow'fbe day.
Earl of LivEnrooL—How many days is it
ago ?—lt was last week ; I do not know the day.
Mr. BROUGHAM—WiII your t ordship ask the
witness, if the person who took him into the
room had a paper in his hand ?
On the question being put by the Loan
CHANCELLOR, the witness answered, yes ; he had
a paper in his hand, and was reading from the
paper, and asking me if it were not so and so
and I said yes, when I knew it was true.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN remarked, that as
the witness had said in answer to a former ques-
tion, that he never was examined since his exami-
nation at Milan, and he now acknowledged hav-
ing been examined in England, he wished to
know the reason why he had given the former
answer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the most regu-
lar way would be to read the question and an-
swer alluded to by the Noble Marquis to the
witness, and then ask him what he meant by that

answer.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE wished to know the
time and place of his last examination.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL saw no difficulty in
the business at all. The witness said he had not
been examined since he was at Milan ; but when
the question was put in a more specific manner,
as to his being examined in England, he said

yes.
Earl GREY understood the witness to have
stated he signed a deposition he had made at
Milan, and that since that time he had not been
examined. Nov the question was, what did the
witness mean by saying he had not since been

examined
On this question being put to the witness, he
answered— " I was thinking you were asking
me if I was not examined at Milan before I
came to England."
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. GURNEY, the short-hand writer, having
asked if he might send away his notes, a desul-
tory conversation ensued, in which Lords GREN-
VILLE, LAUDERDALE, and REDESDALE took part,
j on the necessity of being assured that the notes
were taken correctly, and that the printed Mi-
nutes should be compared with the Notes by Mr.
Gurney, and furnished to the Counsel with the
utmost promptitude.
Mr. GURNEY said he was particularly attentive
to the correctness of his Notes ; and had exa-
mined the printed Minutes, and he was not aware
of any inaccuracy, unless it might be in the
names, which it was difficult to get correctly.
Paoli Agrani examined.
Paoli Agrani was then brought in, placed at
the bar, and examined by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL.
What Countryman are you ?—I am of Lodi.
Were you ever in the service of the Princess of
Wales ?---1 have been.
In what capacity ?—Under cook.
How long were you in that service ?---Almost

a year.
At what places I—At the Villa d'Este and the
Barona.
How long is it since you quitted the Princess's
service?—lt was in the year 1817.
Did you know Bergami ?—Yes.
Where did you first know him ?—At Lodi.
How long ago ?—Between the years 1808 and
1809.
In what situation was Bergami when you first
knew him ?—I have seen him about Lodi, and
then in prison.
Where did you ever see him in prison ?
Mr. DEN3Lts objected to this question. He
thought the Attorney-General had no right to
pat questions respecting the conduct and situa-
tion of the individual who had been named five
or six years previous to the time when those acts
were alleged to be committed, which Were the
subject of this inquiry.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he had merely
asked the witness where he first knew Bergami ;
to this the answer was at Lodi, and in prison, and
he had then .inquired where ?
The question was not repeated.
Was Bergami in the Princess's service when
you were there as Under cook?—He was.
What was Bergami's situation in the Princess's
Service while you were there ?--Baron.
You say that he was Baron. I ask what was
his situation in the Household of her Royal
Highness ?—He had command over the House-
hold.
Did you ever see, while you were in the service
of the Princess of Wales, the Princess and Ber-
gami together have.
Where have you seen them together ?—Going
out andin the kitchen.
When you have seen them walking, in what
way were they walking ?—Arm in arm.
Have you ever seen the Princess riding
have.
Has .any one been with her when you have
seen her riding ?—The Baron and one of her
servants.
You have said that you have seen the Princess
and Bergami in the kitchen. in what manner
did they come into the kitchen I—They came arm
in arm.
When they so came, for what purpose did they
come into the kitchen ?—Sometimes to eat some-
thing.
By sometimes, do VII mean many times or
few ?—Man y times.
Yon say they came for the purpose of eating.
Had they any thing to eat ?—They had.
When you were at the Barona, did you ever
know any balls to be given. by the Princessl-1
have.
Who used f 6 attend those balls p—The country
people, people of low rank and condition.
Did the Princess use to 'dance with thQS per-

sons ?—No, she danced by herself, and sometimes
with Berganti.
139 t did she dance at the same time with the
country people who attended those balls ?—She
did.
Do you know the wife of the innkeeper of t e
St. ChTitopher
"Was sN attllke .A. •
Do you know any of the other persons who
came to these alls ?—There were the daughters
of a farmer of h
whom the Princess had hired the

Barona.
What do you mean by hiring the Bona ?
Do you mean hiring as to tenantcy Yar
?—es ; the
man who hired the land of the Barona.
In which rooms were the dances held ?—ln
the dining-room.
Were any of the other rooms used on such
occasions ?—Yes.
What other rooms ?—lt was a room next to the
dining-rooms, which opened on the stairs, that
led to the room of the Princess.
At these balls did any of the Nobility residing
in the neighbourhood attend ?—No.
At the Barona, have you seen the Princess
and Bergami together ?—I have.
Where ?--Walking out and in the kitchen.
When walking were they alone ?—I have seen
them alone.
Do you know a person of the name of Maho-
met ?—I do.
Have you ever seen him perform any dance ?
—I have.
Have you at any time when Mahomet was per.
forming this dance seen the Princess present ?
Her Royal Highness was present.
In what manner did Mahomet dance ?
[Here witness imitated the motions of Maho.
met in the dance, as they had been previously
imitated by other witnesses, bending the body
forward and snapping the fingers.]
Were those the only motions that he made ?
—I have seen him several times, and always
making the same gesticulations.
Did Mahomet at those times do any thing with
any part of his dress ?
Mr. DENMAN objected to the question, as to
the conduct of the Princess at such times. The
witness had only stated the Princess to have been
once present at this exhibition.
Was the Princess present at this exhibition
once or more than once e than once.
Where ?—At the Villa d'Este, and at the
Barona.
What part of the house was she in at those
times ?---The kitchen and the Court.
On those occasions, did Mahomet, when the
Princess was present, do any thing with any part
of his dress ?—He put his breeches so that he
made a kind of a roll of them, and did so (mak-
ing a disgusting motion.)
Whereabouts was that roll—in what position
was that roll ?—His breeches were twisted be-
hind—l beg pardon, they were twisted before
so—(lmitating.)
Did the Princess look at it ?—She
Did she say or do any thing on these occa-
sions ?—She laughed.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILDS.
Q. When did you leave the PI incess ?—A. In 1817.
Were you discharged for drunkenness? —No.
Did you go away of your own accord ?—When the Prin-
cess went to the Court of Rome I was left behind with six
others.
Were you discharged ?—Yes; but it was tills new order
would be made out; but this new order never came.
Did you receive any pay from the Princess after that ?

No.
What service did you next enter into ?—To the service o
a Priest, but I do not recollect his name.
iVhere did he live ?—He was Minister to the peat Hos
pital at Milan. He dwelt at Milan.
How tong were you in his service ?—A year.
And after living a year with him, de you not know his
name ?—1 have not got his name.
When slid you enter into your last service ?—When I left
the Princess.
How soon was it after the Princess left to go to Rome ?
After six months.
Do you mean to say that you were out of service for six
months after you left the service of the Princess ?
[The witness here remarked that he recollected the name
of the Priest. It was Bourbona.)
Were you ont of place six months ?—I was.
Where did von live all that time ?—ln my house.
Where ?—At Lodi.
How did you support yourself, during that time ?—ln my
house.
How did you support yourself 1-1 lived economically on
my money.
Were you a married man at that time ?—I was.
Had you any family ?One.
Do pro mean to say that you bad saved money enough to
maintain yourself and family for six months I—l do.
Are your wife and family here ?—No.
Where are they?—At Lodi.
What was your employ in the service you have mentioned ?
—That of footman and under cook.
How long were you in that service ?—Almost a year.
Where did you go then ?—lnto the service of the Vice-
Prefect of
where were you when you were first applied to on this
business ?-1 was at Milan.
Who applied to you ?—I was applied to by the Police.
Had you ever mentioned any of the circumstances stated
to-day to any one before ?—1 bad not.
Are you quite sore that you were applied to first at Milan )
—I never said any thing except when 1 was sent. I minded
my own business.
Were you examined at Milan.—l was.
How often ?—Once.
Was your examination put down in writing ?—lt was.
Have you since beers examined ?-1 have not.
Have you ever been examined since, either in Milan or in
England ?—1 base been examined also in England.
Had the person who examined yon any paper ?—He did
write, hut Islo not know what paper he had. He wrote down
what 1 said.
The question is, had the person who examined you a
paper, and not whether he wrote down what you said ?
He had.
Who applied to you to come to England ?—The Govern-
ment of Milan.
Were you sent to an Architect ?—Yes, I was.
Ilave you given up your place ?—Yes.
Do you know Rayzelli ?—1 do.
Have you had any communication with him since you lift
tire Princess's service?—No, I have not.
Do yon know Majocci ?—I know him here.
How long hare you been here ?—1 do not remember.
Have you uen Majocci every day since you have been here?
—Yes.
And Rayzelli ?—No.
You described dancing; who were present when they per-
formed ?—The Princess and the Baron.
Were you pre-ent ?—I was.
Anjhody else ?—Yes, many others; but I paid no attention
who they were.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
R. You have been asked if the person who examined you had
a paper, and read it ; did he read it aloud or to himself?—
A. "Be Inuir.elf.
Have you been in England more than once ?—Yes.
'How loug ago is it since you first came here ?—I do not re-
member the day.
Where did you come to when you first came to England
To MI) .

Do you know the name of the town ?—I don't knoW tbi

name.
Did any thing happen there ?
Mr. Denman objected to this question as leading to ever!
thing that was irrelevant, and therefore he considered it "'-
neither proper nor decent to rat. - r
The Attorney-General maintssled that he 'had aright
to
put the.murstion; that it was bOtiPalnent aneproper, ar',
appeallerlato tire course pursatid inslllq,fammision.i, for
to prove, on. his part these waNno d ositiN toloniunieun'
,neaassavYtx ttfeir Lordships'llinie. t ‘ -3 ••
Mr. Denman contended the question went to give the ge'
t!
to the cross-examination, and to lead their Lordships '""
irrelevant matter. so;
The Lord Chancellor said any question might be put '-
grew out of the nature of the cross-exan-,ination.
Do you recollect about what time you arrived in England?
—I d not remebr when I arried in Englan.
Can you recallm noe circumstancev that will brindg it to Yn'i
recollection ?—I lande at Dover.
How long did you red main in England after you first nr
rived ?—A night and a day.
!There did you go to from England ?
Mr. Denman objected to the question as a waste of there
and
The Loan CHANCELLOR said was difficult to see to Ti-
the question applied.
The Attorney-General said, questions had been put to 01:
witness on the cross-examination to slim that the witneSs:i
were living together. He was therefore desirous of she°
why that had been thought necessary. sel
Mr. Denman replied to the Attoiuey-General in supper
the objection.
The Attorney-General said, he had no wish to raise al
prejudice against the accused; but be wished to rem*"
prejudice unjustly entertained againat the opposite party. 1
Mr. Denman contended his Learned Friend was our,t,
order. He (Mr. Denman) had made his objection—the
At'
torney-General had answered, and he had replied; aod
conceived he was not at liberty to proceed further. Opt
of Long CHANCELLOR said he had to state, that lit 40
of opinion, and that it was the unanimous opinion of all t
°
Judges, that these questions ought to be answered.
~,f CI
s:
Lord Lassnow.—l wish the witness to state whet.... 0(
those two occasions when he says Mahomet danced ia
t,p
kitchen and in the court-yard, the Princess was the Pers,
who sent for him ?—No, the Princess never sent fur hie'
my knowledge.
You have stated that Mahomet twisted' his garments lit'
a roll ; do you know what that roll was meant to represent:
—(The answer was of a nature which decency forbids ti
mention.) 0'
Did her Royal Highness remain or go away when be
made it ?—She remained.
Lard LIVERPooL—I wish to know whether the Nita,
that her Royal Highness did not send any one for
'''o,t
hornet, or that she did not send hiru ?—I don't know wbstol
she ever sent any one else or no, but he knows that she c
and looked at hint. 1
Lord ELLENBoRoUGM—How long did she remain, to
at him ?-1 did not pay attention, I had other occupatioo•
Did site appear gratified by the exhibition ? ill'°
Mr. Denman begged to remind their Lordships that ic,y
question was of a nature that could not lead to any tit
that could be received as evidence. (
Yes, very greatly. Olt
Lord LAUDERDALE.—I wish to know what happened te'
witness at Dover:— bill
ut.
Mr. Denman said he must again tender his humble
Lion to this question being p Unless it cauld be •W),('
that the Princess was present when the circumstance
red, or that it was in some way connected with her con
•
the question, lie should contend, ought not to be put. ,td
Mr. Baanorinat joined his voice to that of his Lesrjd,
Friend, in objecting to this question. Counsel, he conte,ind4'
had a right to object to questions put by the Lords. In Po,
logs' case it had Leen allowed, as well as in maq °I
which could he cited. 4
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that in his own opinielTii
which he was backed by that of the Judges, the questiePool
to what happened at Dover, could not he put, unless it 'fa'
he shown that her Royal Highness was connected in sorar
with what happened at Duerr, and unless there was 0;°
foundation in the cross-examination of the witness, fur
a question being put. j 00,
Lord LAUDERDALE, after a few words, catisenteu tor
the question. ",
Earl GREY thought that their Lordships aught trae%',/,!
their utmost discretion in putting questions to the witn'ofl
Above all, he thought they ought to he careful not rtioel
questions which, in the course of the cross-exarni°l
should have heel, objected to by the Counsel, and the
tti
tioo.A .11,
,;t.., th,. rude.....
Lord Fatastoum-1 wish to know if the servants askrd,4/
friends to the balls which the witness has described?.-'
know: I attended to my business. ..os'..
Then they were not servants' balls ?—No ; they •' E,
A Peer.—Did you consider the !notions of MahoMettlli
usual and customary motions in dancing ?—He always ,
ed these gestures as a customary act in his dances. Or
A Peer.—We're women as well as men present a.t
dances of Mahomet ?—'!'here were nu women.
Witness withdrew.
Louisa Dumont, examined. i
A female was now introduced, eleg
silk hil t/ii.'
lace fri ill round her neck ; her gown appeareo
be black sarcenet.
Louisa Dumont was placed at the Bar. 1 :
did not appear at all disconcerted. Slierj
Iva 4 '
sworn in the French language ; the ...-- 5?
Spinetto, the Italian Interpreter, acting
1 interpreter on this occasion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—Q. Of what
try are you a native ? llr
Mr. WILLIAMS-1 beg pardon : does the
•toe, ,/
ness speak English ?—Witness—Very li 0
at'
Mr. Williams—How long have you been in this e°-
7'rois 7710i5.
And you are sure you do not understand English • rte
The witness answered in French, which was We? /
" I understand a little, very little." stOtri
The SoLICITOR-GENERAL resumed—Of what co,.
you a native ?—Uf the Pays de Vaud, in Switzerlan°•it
Are you a Protestant or Catholic ?—A Protestaul Olet
Did you enter into the service of the Princess of /
l
I did. eu e°
Where did you reside at the time just before I vi
her oya Higns's ervice ?—At Bologna. , les'
Where did you fisrsts go to see the Princess of NN°
e 0
Geneva. 0 ,'
Did yon engage with the Princess of Wales at F!"
I engaged in her service at Geneva. m,
Did you in fact enter her service at Geneva, or
fcer"
at any other place ?—At Lausanne. Ire
Did you proceed front Lausanne to Milan ?--Yes° ,
for fire years. 114 i
In what situation ?—First femme de chambre•lll? yid 1
When you arrived at Milan, of whom did her eth
ness's suite consist?—Gentlemen and Ladies• 00
First the Gentlemen ?—Dr. Holland, Captain
Craven and Mr. Gell. tel'i,A
Now the Ladies ?—Lady Forbes.
Where did you reside at Milan ?—At the ItelaI;011;(1,
Do you remember a person named Bergatai bei 00 1
at that place in her Royal Highness's service?"' ,;('.
well. C°llo`.
oed?' 4
In what situation nr capacity was he enga- hra;ss
How niany days was this before her Royal Hig ‘O.
Milan ?—About fifteen days or a fortnight. _ et Isel
4,
Dining the fifteen days did Bergansi Wall I' '
Highness's table ?—He waited at dinner. pie' '
Did her Royal Hiedn.ess pass through Rollie °
flop ,t
Naples ?—Yes, site (ltd. W.l" i
Do you recollect a young person, named 0,
;‘,
with her Ro)al Highness ?—Yes•an irl/t ..,
Before the Princess arrived at Milan, d° Y-_raill fj;
W. Austin was in the habit of sleeping enne` 5. bit
rally he slept in the room of her Royal Hl3n the
pig Ilt(
0
Where did her Royal Highness sleep 0°
she left Naples ?—At the counts y-bousesieptosotitol),/eg,::
holt)i:ie Yi(t)idhrer-c'lldilievcatl v'H'hicgthilteurtss\'‘sl.rAoontisiti?'—' f c,a . 1104 ?.oti
Did her Royal Flightless, about that tist::',ausijoitiott
versation about the sleeping-room of
_.O IV. ',,,06
la
Royal Highness said the same evening t 1 ''and be,
lit
~
become too big a boy to sleep in her roorus .00,,
a private chamber. t 00a aIio"
Up to this period did Bergami breakfas„ble' (IV,'
other servants ?—He dined always at our he f
on se'
table.
HiNgrlihialetssr' lit" '
was. s.„,sie
.ot
. Berge° v
Do you remember in v hat room - den
?--I'l, •g $ll,
osnalLoris,vaals
aatpNpraiiptiltees(l?—folr rue trig:tea:,
roul'o, Der
er,„,
iiiialit after your arrival at. Naples • pi
Was it near to the one occupied by lief
Yes.