The Sun.
London, England, 1820-09-02 00:00:00

always considered that I had
,a right in cross-examination to
assume any fact, and to pot 'it in a-n intern gatiity shape.
Was the coMplaitit about:kicks don't recollect respect-
ing what. -
Nut respecting the. ''eonducT of 'Baron Ottiteda; whilst be
-was in the house of the Princess ?..-I-don't recollect whether
it was whilst he was in the house or after he was gone.
Question-repeated.—I do nut recollect what, was the sub-
ject of- t'he coioplant. • . 1
. Did you not take aconsidevklge share in \lg complaint?—
No • • • , A
- Did you not write a challenge ? A laugh :)—I don't re-
collect.. -
Did you, yr did you.not, write a letter for Mr. Howland-?
I do not remember writing any fetter fur Mr. Howland nor
for any body else. •
Did he nut desire you to write for him to Baron Ompteda ?
I recollect nothing about it.
[A Letter was here handed to the witness, so folded that
she could only see aline or so of it:]
Tell.me; did you write that letter ?—lt is not exactly like
my hand-Writing.
Do you•believe that it is your band-writing, or not ?—lt is
not exactly like my hand.writing:' - •
Do you, or do you not, believe-ifto be your hand-writing ?
I do nut reeohect writing a letter.
• Do you or do you not- believe it tube your hand-wilting ?—.
I do not think it exactly- like my band-writing; I don't recol-
lect having Written it.
'Phis is not what I asked you ; I believe -minels a very or-,.
'dinary question. Do you or do you not.believl that letter to
be in your liand-wiiting?—l cannot decide whether it is my
hand writing; it is-not quite like it. • -
It is a plain question, which any one with'—he
millionth
part of your understanding might answerl—l can't say.
Question again repeated.—ltis not -exactly like my hand-
writing. . •
Clues-lien repeated ?—I can't swear to what I am not sure

of. . .
-Loan CuANcELLoa.—You only show part of the letter,.
she ought to see the whole. Tell her interpreter that she is
not'asliA whether she knows it to be her writing,. but if she
believes that it is ?-1 Can't positively, say that it is not, but
I do not think it is.
Wit.ntAsis•—How much of. that paper, that has been
before her all the-time that I have asked such.a multitude of
questions,•,hai been-lobmitted to her eve?
LI3IERICK here stated to their Lordships, that there
was a conversation carrying on between strangers and some
oldie Counsel, that interrupted the Counsel in general.
I,Jr. littouoiLsm—This conversation, my Lords, is going
on constantly, and if we object to it it would become your
Lordships' duty to remove the ahstrtiction, hut if pot, 1 con-
ceive no one has a right to object to it. It is the first time
tbatprompting a Counsel has been imputed as acritnel and
so far from being irregular, Vconsider it would be irregular
for a Counsel to speals.withont promptly*
The LOP D CHANCELLOR—If any Nohle Lord wishes to make
an observation, the Counsel must-withdraw.
Do you now see the line and a half which is submitted to
you ?—Yes. •
Do you see it distinctly ?—Yes:!
-IS it your hand-writing?-1 cannot say whether it is mine,
because I do not recognize the %silting,.
Asked again.---1 cannot say, because .it is not exactly as 1

I wish to know from you—'=—
Here the LORI) CHANCELLOR asked if the papers were
marked.
Wrt.t,tams—Yes, my Lord. .
Here witness withdrew ; on Ins, return Mr. Williams re-
sumed. . • . .
Was it not in the month of November) 1817, you quitted
the service of the Princess?—Yes. . •
Did you not know-at-that time all •you have stated to-day ?
—Yes.
SinCe the time you quitted the service of the Princess, have
you not represented her character to besof a high description ?.
—I do not recollect. ,•
-Will-you swear yorthave not represented yotr,Would sot,
render balf your
_tile, if she could read; your heart ?—I may
have said that, I do not recollect.
Did you not say that it she could.-read your -heart she, the
.Princess„ would be then convinced of your attachment and af- ,
fection for her augnst•person ?-1. recollect to have written to.
my-sister, hut do not remember what 'said.
Will you swear you did not write to that effect to your
sister ?—1 have written 'to my-sister.
• Will vou swear that you ddid not wri!e to that effect
wrote several letters to my sister:
Did you not write to the effect I mention ?—I wrote sereral time's; and I have spoken of her_Royal Highness, but do
not know the-expressions.
But the efte,ct?—l have written .to my sister in that sense
—tot hat effect., •
Will you swear. that you did not. say,.". Oh-God '.' I would
give half my life if the Princess Could read my heart?"--I may
have used them. .. •
That• was some time after. you were discharged?—Not long
after, . . . •
Has she not written to her sister that she had enumerated
.in the great. circles, with enthusiasm, of rare talents,,mild--.
ness, charity; and all the perfections of her Royal Highness?
—I do not recollect tho,e precise expressions; but I have.
;spoken of the way in which the Princess behaved to me-
Have you not used the actual expressions do not re-
collect ; but I have written to thiit effect.
You will not swear t hat you 'did not use them ? —No..
But to the effect ?,--Yes. • •
Have yin not said that you "had seen your hearers affect-
eel, and heard them exclaim, the world was unjust in speak-
ing ill of one who deserved .it so little, and who is so worthy
of being happy ?—1 do not remember the expressions.
But have you not written. to that .effect several
Will you swear you did not use the expressions ?—No.
'You kept a journal, did you not
Do you remember writing to your sister, "You can't think
what a noise, my sister, my Journal has made?"-1, wrote se-
veral times,' but I cannot recollect what.
Did you not use. the words I. mentioned? —I. do not re-
collect.
Will you swear not
You said every tote had read your Journal, and that -M.
Caulisez wished to take it to Lausanne, where all the English
who were there wished to see it 1-1 cannot recollect.,
But did you not write to your sister to that elfect ?—I
do not recollect.
is impossible
,for me to recollect the
expressions.
But the effect ?—I cannot swear that of which I am not
perfectly sure.
Did you not show that Journal to Madame Caulisez?—
Yes, but I cio. not know whether it was before or' after my
ret n.
But has •she' not teal it ?—She bas; but I do not know
whether it scat before or after my return.
Have you written to the following effect, to your sister, of
her Itryyal Highness " 1 have been delighted at seeing the
Journal, for you know that I see a great deal of the most-
amiable Princess in the world." 7-1 do nut recollect these ex-
pressions.
Other paesages from the letter were then read, ascribing to
her Royal Highness, all the; graces.ofsensibility„ and describ-
distinguished reception gi yen
~to her at various places
she had witnessed; and the witness was asked—:
Do you remember writing to that effect p--1 'remember
often writing to my sister, and speaking of her Royal High-
ness.
• And to that effect ?—I do* not recollect that it was to that
effect. .
Have you any doubt on the subject you swear that
you did not write to that effect?—l will not swear that I have
not done so, lieOirse I 'do riot recollect.
• Didion not write to your sister--"-You know when the
Princess is the subject I 811 i not barren ; consequently my,
journal is embellished with the effusions of lay heart, as I ant
desirous that the-Princess should
,appear what she really is,
and that full justice-should be rendered to ,her.". .
Did -You write to this effect might have done so,
but•l don't recollect. I will 'not swear, fur lam not rpm's;
might write so; for I was' attached to -the- Princess at that
time. lam riot sure of it.
• Will You swear you did not use the expressions ?-1. cannot
swear.

Have you any doubt ?—l.do not recollect I made use of
them I wrote frequently to my sister. I do nut remember
the expreSiion.
Have you not represented your money was beginning to
fall slilirt do nut know; I never w'auted money.
Have you' not written to your sister, that you wantvl mo-
ney ?—I may have said it, but I was nes* in wait of money.
Have you not told' your sister, Lat she should economize
and retrench every supedoity ?7—l said she ought to ecu-
notnize as she had fortune.
Have 'you' not said, "'DO von know the pain I feel (Or- not
hatin.4++fdo nut recollect whether I wrote thus;-
I never wanted money.
Did you add, " 140 not think I ever was extravagant, but
I havelint- denied' myself many things which were almost
useless ?"—How can you wiz h me to recollect what I bare
written?
. When you have spoken to the House of a double entendre,
did you not write to your sister to the following. effect
" I have almost forgot toconfide to you what will surprise you
as much as it did me. On the 24th of last month I was taking

refreshment at my annt Claro's, when I was informed that all
unknown person wanted to deliser a letter to me, and Y.
would not trust it to any one else. I went down stairs to bill'
•
and desired him to walk into my room, when judge my asto
nishment on breaking the seal, when I founthit containfa 4
proposition that I should set off immediately for London 00
the pretext of being a Governess, and piknitised me high Ftfe
tec4kti" and a b&illiant fortune.in•, a very short time. 11,
letter was•withßt sigstatureXut.lo assure rucof the truth.o
ifscontenfst.,Lwas informed that I Night immsaiately dray un t
A,BZrkerit" much moneyths I ivistied-."•
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been nnwillini
to interpose any objection' to'llte 'coarse of pro-
ceeding adopted by his Learned Friend, but wheo
he proceeded to ask questions on the contents of
a long letter, he apprehended that he -had $
right to, interfere. The proper way would 4 0
put it into the witness's hand and ask-if she-nd#
witted it to be her hanct-writing, but till she
had adinitted the letter to be ber's he' was n°t
at liberty to examine•her as to its contents.
'Mr. WILLIAMS contended• the course. that,
had taken was 'perfectly in order. He
'cross-examination,
argue• that, in'cross-examination, he had
the Same right to 'prove :a contradiction ill
writing, to shake the credit of a Iv itness, that be'
had to prove a contradiction in what had beell'
state,d in evidence.
The.LOnn CHANCELLOR- thoughtit -would ks,
tight, that the
,witness should withdraw.
The witness then withdrew.
Mr: WILLIAMS pursued his argument at cons-`
derable length-. lie called on their Lordships t°
judge by analogy, from what took. place
,in the
Courts below, and not to decide merely on the
statements of Counsel on , recollection, wil°
might be expected to take that view of. the
subject which best suited their .purpose. Oe
then referred to a Nisi Prius case tried before
Lord Kenyon iu 1802, in..which the Counsel
.for. the' defendant was about to examine a wit'.
ness on the subject of what
.he hail previously`
sworn in an affidavit. Lord. Kenyon then interposed
and inquired if the defendant had the affidavit.
or an oflice-copy of it, which he held to be tie'
cessary, before the 'witness could be examined
on the subject of its contents. The a,ffida,4it via*
not at .hand, and the plaintiff had a Nerdict.--A
This, lie thought, made it clear; that if this af'
'fidavit had been produced, the Counsel! might
have asked the witness all the questions that 10
was desirous of *putting. :But the affidavit 110
being there, to 'examine On it 'Would have beal
Waste 'of time. • Why ?„ Because the Learne
Counsel had no means ,of givim, -evidence on the`.'
subject of its contents, such as. the Conit could'
receive. The AttorneyrGeneral,,'assurning thst,
he had the letter,- and that its contents wef'
true,. contendedAhat he had no right tolexardo'.
on it till he - had -Put it', into the witness's bawl
and obtained froin her , admission" cif. it,. Wl'
'with a witness pOsSessea of the acnteness of.tbei,
person now untler.exarnivation, to do .alat wolll°.
'be as useless as to pia into' her hand 'a: :Nisi Prito
Report.. - He, chew ed that '.a decision similar
'that for which ,he contended had beam tomeio
a Nisi•PriusCOUrt at the 'last yori Assizes,
fOre-Mr. Justice -Bailey. lie,. however, did 10..1
consider the objection the Attorney-Gener!;
to :be.: captious; far froM it, . for Ate kneW
Learned Friend`was now ghting:::pro Iris et Pc's'
He- held. it t,o' be a sensible objection, but he <11;
sidered thatt he bad even the authority of
*Law. Officers of the Crown in, favour of the
Course he was" taking, as' they
,ha 4 allowed_
to pursue it for two hours by the wittn,
offering any- opposition-to it, and file now appo
ed to their Lordships if he.tnight' not persevelel.
for a short time now, in that course which be
been allowed to take for a long tit De before NOP
out objection.
Mr. BROUGHAM sustained-the strgument of -
Learned Friend, by Minutely describing the eta
cumstances under which the decistrion referred

at the last York Assizes had been given. ,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 601 itght. he. rai-ti
dismiss the argument on the Nisi Prius case,
reminding, their Lordships of wha,t' his Learl'ed,
Friend (Mr. Williams) had ,saitll of cases 4119 ti,
on recollection : that the Counsel who brolTo,
theni forward were apt to take that. -view of
ill
which suited their own purpose....lt :was his auto
in the present. case,. to see that the exgrnivatil,
were conducted according to the revs atr
Upon. in the ordinary Courts of Justice. ict
maintained that before the examination
proceed, the letter ought to be p.ut into the ),
ness's hand, for the purpose .or, obtain' fog at“:if
mission or.a, del-dal- of its being in the witrtew-oer
hand-writing. That letter might be a trusent
but their .Lordships had no right to k P 01( 4%4
thing of it but from the letter itself. Ile "to'
obliged to his Learned Friend:for ref orri.'3;-00.-
the Nisi Prius case tried before • Lord , ell op
In that case it 'was said the affidavit or aiLor.
'lice copy'of it must he produced. That ::10%hlr
the purpose of its being read preparator t°lfor
witness being examined on it; and there 111 r
decision come to With respect to it, mad ‘v I}}ot:
your of his objection instead of against it.
he had not interfered before, was no reas Pellal lie
he shoUld not -make his objection now, l'l the
must therefore submit to their Lordships, t h`ht 0,0
course which his Learned Friend had tak 93
irregular and illegal. be6t,
Lord ERSKINE- was of opinion, that ti -- lc-
and proper Mode of examination was, to ?f° 'her
the letter; and ask the witness whether it lic'DoT
hand-writing or. not. Ifshe denies it, or 41'3'1016
then other persons should. be called to pr a 9 0..1"
fact. He thought there Would' be danger
lowing any cither courie. Witness might hi lifi:tteri
of the contents, and -admit that she had ;1'415 De'
something to•that effect ; but afterwards,ol thating produced, she might deny having writ 10
letter. he rolf
The Lorin CHAScEaor. thought, if t "tteo';
of evidence bad notibeen-altered since he n otilLfr
ed the Courts'in which viva voce eviden 111'
'll
be received,. the course.to be pursue)
,t
view of shaking the 'credit of, a witness tll'
the first instance, to obtain an. admisE ,Livitoels^
such or such words had been •USed by th, %` to 1101‘
The same .rule held good with respec
thing that might' have been stated ill ^ j:eocle;;
In such case, the, letter or paper,he,apr, -Ir7ca `` afio,
must be shewn to the witness, and a': rtiou
is
or no" whether that letter or superscr +1

ti