The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-03 00:00:00

x uIII

h re;
rib''
h
fir 4
night
►f the

Mance
ash
arru
r 9 be-
to brf
woof
sco

bte total strangers to each 'other until the adul-
,ry commenced, for when he took into, his con
suleration the whole mass of evidence, • he
was convinced tlfat every conscientious man
rnust say that the adultery was confirmed beyond
11a1.1Y. manner of doubt. He would go into the
titstory of this famous hero, Mr. Bergami, who,
21 were told, was a man of no fortune, but
that he was a gentleman born. Fortune or no
t°rtnine) gentleman or no gentleman, take
which way their Lordships pleased, it could
." ar be
' on this case. However, they found
in a quarter-master in the year 1800, and a
c natier in the service of General Pino in the year
1809' if he stated any thing cbatrary to the
evidenceti in the printed minutes, he requested
s, , 4,4 t be mins)ht be stopped, for it was not his in-
sciao/I to
do so. He had this from the evidence
Nil Sir William Gell, Mr. Keppel Craven, and
r• Sicard. Sir Win. Gell told their Lordships
lat Bergami was hired into her Royal High-
-4
rie's's service as a courier, with promise of pro-
eticm, as he was a man of superior qualifica-
-4- Mr. Sicard had, however, told them that
pi;arni was only hired on a job, to go to Na-
co:ma' a courier, and the greatest preferment he
of expect was to be continued in the situation
111-c;arier by her Royal Highness at Naples.—
firoeir Lordships ,had it in evidence that on the
Na4ight of her Royal Highness's arrival at
rerress that the lad, William Austin, was
sc,l-;°_,ved from sleeping in her room ; this
if denied by the witness, Carrington ; but
son his evidence was not impeached, the per
who fixed the beds for her Royal
bpC,Tiess and her suite ought to lie believed
by
;Veit Lordships before him ; and according
tit ,'e account of the person who had so fixed
.I)set-,,l'),tbeY could not be better fixed for the per-
the-aung of the crime charged in the Bill, for by
do °Yening of one door there was a communica-
"etween the bed rooms of her Royal High-
apt,,and Bergami. There was one circumstance,
04:1!ntly trivial in its nature, but which on exa-
.gs;;;"°ll disclosed a vast deal : the courier Ber-
,as walking one day after her Royal High-
k id 2 In the garden, at Naples, and Mr. Craven
hos for
their Lordships that he admonished
ter doincs s he would ask for what ? It was
firstltio;s time he had heard of a woman being ad-
Itad'Ened for her servant following her. He
eau often heard of their being admonished be-
loge out without a servant fol-
s,4ag them. But who was her Royal.High-
tf s admonished by ? one of her suite, one ,
herhi servants, her Chamberlain, Mr. Kep-
solweraven. If there was nothing but this
b'ter walking after his Royal Mistress, would
Ch Q believed that the insult offered by the
koamberlain to Royalty, by his admonishing her
IVO/„.a,i,Righness, would have, gone unpunishtal !
lisvmtu not the Chamberlain, for his audacity,
been dismissed ? It also appeared that
11 er'll her Royal Highness dined in private, that
gair n was the only attendant on her. Their
1 sa-"Ps would bear in their recollection that
skl;.4 'Charlotte Lindsay had told them that Ber-
au_' always attended her Royal Highness in her
takin and that her Ladyship would not undet-
IN; to say that they did not, iu those walks,
th;,‘ armin arm. They arrived at Genoa, and
11 Lady Elizabeth Forbes, Mr. Craven, Capt.
tit:(e, and Sicard, disappeared ; but the adven- ,
41cir' somehow or other, still kept close to her,
1 very soon after their arrival there, their
`k's°,4., ti'.;sl,uPs had been told that a brother 'of Ber-
qiii''s appeared, a sister, an old lady, a young
kith and an attendant for this child. Now,
'll4 respect to these. facts, was there any evi-
Adeee that her Royal Highness had said in con-
kaoci4 to any of her old servants, " Bergami is so
las, to
faithful a servant, that I think it neces-
tel',"" have his sister, his child, and others of his
lon twee about me ?" No such thing. It was
ka after the arrival of the sister . that she
ist• c'wn to stand to the favourite in that re-
eda it- In the second place, the remark suggest-
Qen selfshow did this Countess Oldi arrive at
-143 a Did she come of her own accord . Cer-
Isstsl"l „, -not. Then as her coming was kept pri-
tab' nnist there not have been a secret on the
ths;ect between the person who brought her
gaitZ' and her Majesty ? That person was Ber-
Ivat Must sit not then be supposed that there
lier, a ecret between her Royal highness and
illarni! A. secret between a Princess of
lesand and her menial servant, and that on the
tog 'mPortant subject of the Lady of Honour
I.l4tedntroduced into her family !—(Hear, hear.)
that re Was a further secret, because it appeared
.isstv"Tuell the Countess Oldi was living in her Ma-
-0://,:,,s house, and dining at her table as Dame
Lisilinear at Milan, neither Dr. 'Holland nor
kis') -lc", ant lloweam knew who she was. The.
ttist7r,--"In('-M of the Countess Oldi to the sc.-
Pow ,of sole Lady of Honour was most
Young, e-"4...tevidence of guilt. Secrets between
led k'rentleirsen and young Ladies often
"as ,° dangerous consequences ; but here
secret confined to the breasts of a
not :ess and her servant. Ile hoped he was
as ,a,-"ggerating • but really this fact struck him
e(,Bser '
y
a• What! a secret between a Prin-
hat da person who had entered her service
1,1 'v" months before for a job!!! Leaving
igh°,4: the only Englishman leffin her Royal
sagleSs's service was Mr. Burrell—(A Peer
sted that Mr. Hownam also remained)—
Nr's:l, 141 Mr. Hownam. But no Sooner did Mr.
ii I,,‘"t" quit her service than she began to indulge
v his PlaYs, and, among others, blind-man's buff,
the person's relations. This was established
evidence for the defence, that no' sooner
nes,,sll the English out of her Royal High-
isietie service, than these amusements were coin-
lat10::1 on account of Bergami and his re-
to she 1-1 e should have occasion afterwards
col4:w that there was no small lot of them
° :11ted, about her—not less than thirteen.
Couriera' could all this be attributed ? This
taken "as employed for a job—subsequently
Short bite her Royal Highness's service—in a very
becesn,4'e, Proved by Lady C. Lindsay to have
4tivau Ina, favourite servant—his relations are
ce`' into his mistress's service at Genoa—

at Milan his sister gets into the place of Lady
of Honour to her, a seat at her table, and a state
of close companionship. Mr. Hownam had proved
that the courier himself had been admitted to her
Royal Highness's table at Bellanzona, at the
Devil's Bridge, and another place, and at the Villa
d'Este he was established dining regularly at her
Royal Highness's table, where a Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Guildford, we presumed) had the
honour, if such he esteemed it, of dining there in
company with him and his sister. Theatrical en-
tertainments succeeded, in whirls her Royal
Highness played parts with Bergami's relations,
before an audience which amounted to about
200 persons. 'What inference could be drawn
from this ? The Noble Lord then proceeded to.
comment upon the evidence of Mr. Hownam,
who, he said, had dexterously avoided the ac-
knowledgment that any entertainment had taken
place on St. Bartholomew's day on board. In
that evidence the eros§est prevarication had been
made. As to the n'theatre, Hownam's recollection
had
sheen guilty of treachery. He had\not recol-
lected whether- her Royal Highness played Co-
lumbine, but he remembered that she played an
Automaton, a thing that could be wound up to
any thing, and she was sold as a machine !. Nov,
could their Lordships suppose any case stronger
than that of a Princess taking her courier to
hei• table, promoting him to such transcendent
honours, and playing with and for the amuse-
ment of his family ; and all this within the short
space of eight months I -Here then was sudden
and rapid promotion. And what service had
this person rendered to her Royal Highness ? '
One of her visitors had taken notice of his figure,
but forgot every other circumstance attending ,
him. It was yet to be learned how the circum-
stance of appearing with a sword drawn when
there was a fear of robbers, could have entitled
Bergami to such a distinction. What then- was
he to presume from Bergami's not being called ?
He would contend, that her Majesty was called
upon to bring him to the Bar as a witness, in a
greater degree than ever existed for, the calling
of any man.' The Noble Lord then adverted to
the change of apartments on board the Leviathan,
as established by the evidence of Captain Briggs,-
observing, that that change occurred at a time
when her Majesty had been aware of the very
strong suspicions excited to her prejudice by the
rapid advancement of Bergami. On board the
Clorinde the most suspicious arrangement had
taken place, and Captain Pechell refused to sit
at the table, in consequence, of the fact that
this courier, who had waited at table on
`a former occasion, shad been dignified to a,
seat at it. Did he mean to censure Captain
Pechell for this ? No ; 'Captain Pechell had
acted by this refusal in a manner highly cre-
ditable to himself.—(llear, hear, hear!)—Her
Royal Highness was only Sour days on board the
Clorinde, but even for that short space nothing
would gratify her liberal feelings but the keep-
ing a separate table, for the purpose of enjoying
the society of this highly favoured man ; this
man who, -within the space of "a year, had been
advanced from the post of a courier. This she
did, notwithstanding-the admonitions which -she
had received from Mr. Craven; and the second
admonition conveyed in the knowledge that
there was a Captain of the British Navy, who
found it irnpossible, consistent with what he
owed to his rank and station, to sit down at the
same table with that so often named individual ;
and perhaps with ,further admonitions, for it ap-
peared that long before an admonition had been
pronounced on her Royal Highness's conduct
by the late Sovereign—that Sovereign, whose
treatment of her had been so highly pane-
gyrised by her Counsel—and that if Mr.
Hownam's own declaration was to be cre-
dited, she had also received an admonition
from him. The parties having placed them-
selves in this suspicious state of familiarity,
embarked on board the polacre, and the state of
the apartments there was the same as on shore.
He contended that there was nothing in the evi-
dence to shew that Bergami's room had been
occupied by time Doctor taken on board at Tunis.
The Noble Lord then called their Lordships'
attention to the evidence of "Lieutenant Flynn
and Mr. Hownam, which proved how far those
volunteer witnesses exposed themselves, and to
what fidelity they were entitled. They had the
acknowledgment of Mr. Denman, that the Soli-
citor-General's severity of cross-examination had
led the former witness into some apparent (as he
would have it thought) inconsistencies and con
tradictions—but there was no other way of deal-
ing with a witness of that sort, but by exposing,
if possible, in the presence of the Court, the en-
tire falsehood of the tale he endeavoured to palm
on its credulity. The Noble Lord then read, as
a specimen of the style and manner of Mr. How-
nam's evidence, the passage in which he stated,
that he had not observed whether, on St. Bar-
tholomew's Day, B(srgami and the Queen had
walked arm in arm on the deck ; that they walked
- as usual ; that they might have walked arm in
arm; that her Majesty could not walk on deck
without the support of somebody; that they were
then in the port of Syracuse ; that they walked
in the way they always did ; and lastly, that if
. they had walked arm in arm, it was so usual
an occurrence, that it would not have excited any
surprise in him. So that here, continued the
Noble Lord, was the witness cavilling and pre-
varicating about that which he knew to be true,
about that which he had seen a hundred times.
Such was the evidence they had to deal with.—
Unless the evidence of Mf. Hownam was con-
, firmed, he could not believe a word of it. The
question was, how to choose between these two
Gentlemen ; for they were in many points quite
opposed to each other. He felt himself -bound
to look to facts ; and judging by that
standard, he preferred evidence of one in some
instances, and of the other in others. His
Lordship next adverted to the necessity that
a person should sleep near her Majesty
on board the polacre, and commented with
great severity upon the evidence of Mr.
Hownam as to that subject. That witness had,
he said, admitted; in one place; that no danger ex-

isted, and itvanother, that it had,in one place he
said the crew were to be suspected, and in another
that they were not. Now, if there was no mys-

tery in the tent: in which her Majesty lay, there
Lever had appeared before the public two more
perjured witnesses than IloWnam and Flynn.
The Noble Lord then animat4erted on the testi-

molly of Lieutenants Hownarn and Flynn, whom
he designated_ as - two precious witnesses, and
who contradicted each other.' The evidence for

the defence' had been incomplete so far as re-
lated to the polacre; and yet Oldi,' Bron,
ilieronymusr Austin, Schiavini, and Camera,
lad not been. .called. The fact was, that

Lieutenant Hownam's evidence in favour of the
intercourse on board the polacca was supported
by five other witnesses. There had been little,
very little done, to impeach the evidence of Ma-
jocci and-Dumont, much as it had been abtfsed.
Majocci's evidence was more • connected than
that of many of the' witnesses ; but he had said
non nil ricordo, and this had been made the ground
of a very unjustifiable attack. But, in a manner
to impress. the public mind, it was stated that
he
_had been contradicted
.by Mr. Hyatt,
a Mrs. Hughey, a Mr. Hughes,. a banker's clerk,
and by a Mr. Godfrey, with Whom he had
travelled in a stage coach ; and yet' not one of
these persons had been called, which would have
been the case if they could have contradicted 'lla.-
peel. Carrington bad been called to contradict
Majocci ; but Carrington's assertion, as' to his
being a Midshipman, was contradicted by Sir
John Bey ford ; and CarringtOn was riot a wit-

ness entitled to any credit. -His Lordship went
on, as far as we could collect, comparing the
evidence of Majocci with that of Sir William
Gehl and his servant, Carrington, as to the evi-
dence which the latter had given of what took
place in the servants' hall at ttuffinelli. He
was understood to say, that he preferred the evi-
dence of Majocci to that of Carrington and his

master. His Lordship further statedTthat Hever),
word of the evidence which could be at all scru-
pulous were struck out, there would remain the
evidence of Vincenzo Gargiulo, Luigi. Gal-
dini, Giuseppe Bianchi, Geroleirto Majaut,
Alessandro Antonio Bianchi, Carlo Fail-
catti; Giuseppe Galli, and Giuseppe Sacchi,
which ought to be contradieted,7 and which
might have been contradicted if _they had spoken
what was not true. His other observations appear-
ed to be chiefly applied to the elevation of Bergami,
the evidence of Vassali, the circumstances which
were given in evidence against the Queen as to
what passed at Catania, at Amu, on board the
polacre, and at Ephesus He defended the-pro-
ceeding by a 13111 of Pains and Penalties, and
protested against the House being swayed by
the consideration of what might be expected to
take place in the House of Commons, or by the
dread of any effect which the proceeding might
produce .out
,of doors. He defended his own
conduct in the course of these proceedings from

the aspersions of certain base and infamoiis indi-
viduals, who, not being able to imagine it possi-
ble for a,man to perform a just and honourable
act, had attributed the most sordid motives to
his Lordship. He had actually received, in con-
sequence of those, calumnious representations, a
letter from a Professor, requesting to be appoint-
ed Body Physician to his Lordship on his voyage
to the East Indies, where he was reported as
about to be appointed Governor-General. Had
the PhysiCian known as much of his constitution
as his Lordship himself, he would never have
hoped for the prolongation of his life till he
could arrive there. . t\fter some further remarks,

his Lordship declared that he shOuld, on the most
conscientious motives, vote for the

The Earl of ItosE tt auay rose to .offer a feW
observations, rather from a wish to satisfy his
own conscience, than from any presumption that
he. could .throw any new light upen tire subject.
Without arrogating to himself any peculiar*Aare
of knowledge, he would say that none
-of their
Lordships could ,have watched the proceedings
with more impartiality, or come to the question
with less bias than he did. He felt that, if this
Bill could be entertained at all, it must be upon
the principle of public Wrong ; and he had de-
termined to vote for the Bill if the testimony had'
been uncontradictory ; hut he saw so much'
perjury and contradiction in the case, that
there must be suspicions of improper practices,
although he had no intention to attribute
them to his Majesty's Ministers ; and with
such a case he could not, with proper re-
gard to his conscience and honour, vote for the
Bill. This was a Bill introduced with the plea of
State expediency, but there was too much reason
to suppose that expediency, as well as principle,
was directed against it. He hoped their Lord-
ships would, notwithstanding all that had drop-
ped from the Noble Earl (Lauderdale) exclude
from their consideration the probability of the
other House of Parliament rejecting the mea-
sure, and it was the duty of their Lordships to
look at the case in all its bearings. The inex-
pediency rose in strength as the evidence dimi-
nished in clearness. Disclaiming, therefore, po-
pular clamour and its influence, he was of opi-
nion that the sense of the important body of the
community ought to be listened to and have its
effect. In the spirit of discretion, therefore, he

• . •
implored their Lordships to act on this benevo-
lent principle, and to allow what was doubtful
in the evidence to plead for the accused. He
considered justice and expediency to- be alike
against 'passing the Bill into a- law ; and alter the
most attentive consideration of the case he must.
say Not Content.
• Lord REDESDALE said, he had examined the
depositibns, and•he,had no doubt that proof, in
'
this case, Was full and absolute. having read
the evidence from beginning to end, the impres-.
sion on his mind was that•the case, notwithstand-
ing contradictory evidence, was as clearly proved,'
as any case ever was in the Courts of Justice.
His official experience had taught him to decide,
in cases where there was contradiction or'doubt,.
upon -the unquestionable facts. That was the
rule laid down. in the Courts, from the.earliest
knowledge he had of the law. It was a rule,
essentially necessary in the other country 'where

his Lordship had officiated, .and in his opinion,
peculiarly applicable to this case. The facts,
stated in evidence with respect to the po-
!acre, were sufficiently established. If so, it
was for their Lordships to consider what, com-
plexion that feature of the case would give to the
whole. When his Lordship entered into the evi-
dence respecting the circumstances on board the
polacre, he found the balance of credit in favour
of Majocci and Dumont.
.The eVidence of both
those witnesses was contradictory, but although
he could not,:in all points, give them implicit con-
fidence,he was not justified in rejecting their evi-
dence altoo-etb6r. There was contradiction in the
evidence of Lieut. Flynn. In- some parts of his
evidence, the House could not believe him, because
if that witness' did not speakabsolute and delibe-
rate falsehood, it was something untrue ; at the
same time he could not reject. the whole of Lieut.
Flynn's testimony. Some allowance, therefore,
ought to be given for the hurried manner in
which questions. were answered and taken down
by the short-hand writer. Their Lordships
could not avoid seeing palpable mistakeS in the
answers of the witnesses ; but looking at the
whole evidence from. beginning' to end, his Lord-
ship believed Majocci entitled to credit on the
generality of his deposition. The House ought
to have good ground for saying' they could
not believe him. He had been cross-examined,
and in his answers had told the whole story re-
specting i conversation -he had with Camera about
a certificate of character. Was' that true or
false ? If false, it might have been disproved
by
_Camera ; but that person was not called.
Upon the whole, the contradiction found in parts
-of Majocci's testimony could sot invalidate facts,
which must be taken to be unquestionable. With
respect to all the evidence, the Noble and Learned
Lord admitted there was in many instances some
appearance of inconsistency and the want of pro-
priety. Some parts might be true or not, but what
was to become of the general interests of man-,
kind, if every witness was to be rejected on the
ground of inconsistency in parts of his evidence ?
Doubtful evidence could , 'lever overturn that
which was true: The House were to try- the
evidence of Louisa Dumont, of whom so much
had been said, by the test of circumstances which
were unquestionably . true. What was the';evi-
deuce given respecting the bath ? Upon the
depositions. of Captain Garguilo, Dumont, and
Majocci, could there be any doubt whether there
was a bath on board ? The qUestion then was,,
whether it stood in the sleeping cabin or the din-
ing cabin ? In whatever situation the bath was
placed, it was clearly established that the Prin-
cess, when. she used it, was attended by. Bergami.
According to the evidence of Garguilo, Dumont,
and Majocci, Bergami came out of the bath, and
called upon them to assist the Princess. - It-was
clear that no female was with, the Princess and
therefore he considered the testimony of-Majocci
not only uncontradicted, but proved. That fact
alone was sufficient .to . lead their Lordships to art
inference of guilt; for what woman, that had not
sacrified her virtue to a man, could endure that matt
in her bath ? This circumstance, with others,
made an impression on his mind which induced.
him to give credit to the-general evidence given
by Dumont and Majocci. What difficulty could.
there have been in disproving the facts to which
he alluded ? They might-have had plans of
the places, and if any female was with the Prin-
cess, why was she not called to their Lordships'
bar ? If no evidence of that sort was brought
forward, he was obliged to believe the story of
Dumont and Majocci. It would be running wide
from common sense not to believe thew antLde-
stroying all security to he derived from evidence.
He could draw no other conclusion than that
drawn by the Noble and Learned Lord. The
form of proceeding• had been objected to, but be
thought it was necessary this measure should be
adopted. Bills of Pains and Penalties could not
be objectionable in a constitutional point of view.
They- .might be -said to protect the right of
succession. The first act of settlement excluded
all persons :from the succession who professed
the Roman Catholic religion. Was' not that'
in its operation a Bill of Pains and Penalties ?'
now could it be Said that a Bill of Painsfand
Penalties was unconstitutional, when the great
institution of British Government depended on
Bills of Pains and Penalties?' Were'the persons
who passed the. Act of Settlement unconstitu-
tional men ? -Those Bills were absolutely neces-
sary in some cases, but then it was said they were
not to be resorted to unless in cases of great ne-
cessity. Without Bills of *Pains and Penalties,
the State could not exist. Divorce Bills were
Bills of Pains and Penalties; indeed, any mea-
sure which went to affect the interest of an indi-
vidual might be considered a Bill of Pains and
Penalties; but with regard to the measure be-
fore the House, the operation differed from the
Divorce proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courd,
which could go no further than separation
a mensa et. thoro, but a divorce by Act of
Parliament dissolved the marriage. It was some-
thing superadded to the decision of the Eccle-
siastical Court. In that respect it was different
from the common and ordinary proceeding for
divorce, but the House. ought to consider what
would be the consequence if any other course
than the Bill before them was adopted. In rase
they proceeded' by impeachment, . her Ma-
jesty would have a. right to demand all the state
and dignity of Queen. Could it be resorted to
without the ceremony of crowning took place ?
• Before the highest dignities were conferred, Par-
liament was bound to inquire whether the Illus-
ttroiof uo
forfeit
f ePi etrsarl
right
hadghnoto s
tohr se
dc
ioanndi
tuyc t ea tin
dh esrtsaet e
as
of
Queen Consort of these realms., She was a pub-
lic and political character, and therefore he con-
ceived that a legislative measure was necessary
to bring on the inquiry to whiCh he alluded. it
iNnati apsesaaclidimOt enotufgoit
rlhtioghhatvreeabsoene.n
fprsooc,eeitditolgogbhyt
also to have been an offence liable to indict-
ment, for if it were net indictable they could .
have no impeachment. If there was no pro-
, ceeding by indictment, then the only course of
, proceeding, was by Bill. That proceeding the

11wire bad adopted. They had power to adopt
it.;.ua could it be said they had done wrong in
th 6 etercie of the power with which they
were entrusted by the Constitution? Suppose a
(~-rant~ Jury was to decide upon an indictment
which'charged the Prince'ss with a misdemeanour,
whei-e could they !ay the misderneanpur ? It
ivould be abroad, and not being within the realm,
there could be no indictment. The Noble
null Learned Lord then cited Sacheverel's case
in sweport of the law upon the point, and
maintained that there could not have been an io-
dictment, as their Lordships could not proceed
by indictment or impeachment on ittiy other.
grounds than that of the offence 'being com-
mitted within the retain. The mode of proceed-
ing .1.)5' MIL wao, under all the circurnstoures • of
-this case, preferable to any other proceedlitg:
Trial, by legiolatiVe mode was alto pro.duc--
five of great atlvautao-es to the accused : ad-*
*ant-ages not to be foam/ in a trial for Ilirla Trea-
Y.n.71. Time had been allowed in the cocrse of
this Fracoetling -which co+lid not have been ob-
tainvd in any. other. - 'l'ba tiiac had'been eno-
plo3od in the endeavour to say so-otetlaing
tz,reeitto-t '.I7PTV i iuw-,S who 11;lai'MYellt a cross-
xuri-ination. ;such had been said on the!
r.Npodii.'nev, hut coOld any thing he
mire ineifred3i,at tiYan giving i4p fitis pro-
-o,sl‘tlinp:' after' the Ilo‘rie Lad gone o far?—
Theoc were tohi o tikrnatent colt of that House;
knerr 4fi;eic9ntent with respect ta the Witnesses
6'43 YSP3a o hoe loo'g.hog, at the evitleitee on.one
if& a-nd. the. other,' he as convinced there was
met 4-7,Avit if for nli;c1; diicootent. So far (rout
thinljne Theo a reason for
.:olv)reg -op the Bill, it
hes loorflohie:'„s opinion, stroi rea.sonio
Jtrideoo the.it LOAships iic poss •it to the other
Ileosove leavioo that branch of the Legislature to
tlar soh it :shot they thooo,lit best.
'* The. Noble rood -Loomed Lord concloded at
forte-dark,- tohkt. 11:ze noose adjourned till to-
morrow morning.