Star.
London, England, 1820-08-22 00:00:00

to the door of the cabin, arid there they' were taken from me
by Bergami *became half out of the de& for that peepose.
Does witness know 'whether the Princess was in the bath
when he took the water to the cabin on the Occasion tdwhich
he alludes ?—I cannot tell. .
Where was the cabin in which witness slept situated, with
reference to her Royal'Highness's tent ?—I ley in the gang-room
lsnmediately.under her Royal Highneis's tent.
Under the tent ?—lmmediately under.
Did witness during the time of his sleeping in that bed hear
any particular noise coming from the tent above ?—I &I [Here
witness described his having heard a particular sort of noise
(through the, deck), and his description of that noise was such
that there was an universal laugh through the House].
Where did the Princess landlut her return?—At Capolanza.
Who was with her?—The sister of Bergami, a Turk, a
Moor, and the man named Camara.
What were the names of the Turk and the Moor?--The one
was called Selim and the other Solyman.
Was there a person called Mahomet on board?—Yes.
Where was he brought from?—.laffa.
Was Bergami sent forward to Aretino 7—Yes.
For what purpose?—For the purpose of securing a landing'
withdut any inquiry being made; witness returned with the
Princess and Bergami to the Villa d'Este,
flow long did they remain thete 7—About a month. [Some
difference of opinion arose as to the meaning of the phrase used
by the witness, but it was finally agreed it meant one month].
Went from thence to the Villa Bergami, so called from Ber-
gami having purchased it.
How long were the Princess and Bergami at the Villa Ber-
gami?—About six weeks, and afterwards went to Bavaria.
What was the arrangement of the bed-rooms of the l'rincess
and Bergami ?—Both opened on the same landing-place, the
staircase being in one corner.
Were there any dances or balls given at the Nina Bergami?—
Yes.
Were they frequent ?—Witness remembers twice.
How far is the Villa Bergami from Milan ?—Tivo miles.
Did any of the Nobility of Milan visit the Princess at the
Villa Bergami?—Does not recollect; attended the Princess
into Bavaria.
. Were there any arrangements at any place in the progress of
the jcorny made by the master of the houso for the accom-
modation of the Princess and Bergami, and afterwards altered?
—Yea. _ _ _

In what instance?—ln one instance the arrangements were
changed.
At what place?—At blunich.
By whose orders ?—The orders of the Princess and Bergami. '
Were the apartments allotted to the Princess and Bergami
according to the originil arrangement near or distant from each
other 7—Distant.
Was the arrangement changed so as to be similar to that be-
fore stated?—The arrangement was altered so that the rooms of
the Princess and Bergami were nearer each other.
By whose orders was this alteration made in the arrangement ?
—By the orders of Bergami.
Was the Princess present ?—She was.
Did the witness remember going to Carlsrbue ?

- -
The Marquis of CAMDEN said, he understood the House
had agreed to adjourn at four o'clock, and it was now some time
pan that hour.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL agreed that such was the under-
standing, and it was for the convenience of ail parties, but he
bad no objection to go on for a quarter or half an hour longer, if
they could thereby come to the conclusion of the examination of
the witness.
I The Earl GREY was willing to go on for an hour farther, or
more, if they could thereby come to the conclusion of any
branch of the examination that it was important to get through.
The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested, that it would be
the best way to ask the Learned Counsel whether he was likely
soon to finish the examination in chief?
The SOUCITOR•GCNERAL was unrble to say how long the exa-
mination of this witness would last.
The Earl of DARNLEY wished more time to be devoted
each day to the examination than there was at present.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, the oi ginal agreement
was, that the House should sit sir hours from the first calling in
of the Counsel.
After some farther conversation, the House not agreeing, the
Loan Cuascsi.cuit put the question, that the Counsel be again
called in. "
His Lordship declared that the Nut-contents bad it; some
Noble Lord said the Contents had it, and the House was about
to divide, strangers having partly withdrawn, when it was
agreed that the question was negatived.
Another conversation then took place as to the hone at which
the proceedings should close in future.
Lord OREN VILLE urged the expediency of having some
dehuue period fixed, as otherwise much time would be unne-
cessarily wasted, in discussing every day whether they should
close the proceedings or not.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that six hours from
the time of calling in the Counsel was as much as, with a due
regard to the situation of different persons employed, such as the
Interpreter, &c. could be devoted to the proceedings.
The question was then put, that the proceedings should close
in future at four o'clock. An Amendment was moved, to sub-
stitute five. The question was again put, that the word "four
stand part of the question, and the Loco CHANCELLOR declared
that the Contents had it. There was still a call for' five," but it
was at length agreed that the word " four" was carried in the
affirmative.
The Earl of Harborough's Indemnity Bill was returned,
agreed to, by Mr. Baomaxii and other Members of the House
of Commons.
Adjourned till to-morrow (this day) morning, at Ten o'Clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The House met at a quarter before four o'clock, when a few
Members took the oaths and their seats.
Lord CASTLEREAGH proposed the appointment of a
Committee to inspect the Journals of the Ilouse of Lords, with
relation to any proceedings taken as to the conduct of the Queen,
and report thereon.
Mr. TIERNEY felt no objection to the motion, but wished
to correct an impression that had got abroad, in consequence of
which the conduct of that House was supposed to be fettered
by the proceedings hi the Lords. He understood the arrange-
ment in no such light. He felt himself, with every other Mem-
ber of the House, at full liberty, if ever the Bill before the
Lords reached that House,, to object to the whole form of the
proceeding.
Lord CASTLEREAGH having expressed his concurrence
in the same understanding, the motion for the appointment of
the Committee was carried.

EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose for the purpose of asking a
question of the Noble Lord opposite (Castlereagh), as to a sub-
ject which affected the conduct of one of the principal Powers
of Europe. There was no man who regarded the freedom of
the world, and the stability of our relations with Spain, that did
not look upon recent transactions in that country with the great-
est interest. It appeared, however, that the Emperor of Rus-
sia took a different view of that subject, arid had thought proper
to express his disapprobation at the establishment of a Constitu-
tion by violence and military force. Although he expressed no
such opinion at the establishment of a Constitution by similar
means in 1614, yet on the events in Spain he had been pleased to
read a moral lesson to independent States. It teemed, there-
fore, though this country having obtained its Constitution by a
Revolution, could not partake in suck sentiments ; that in the
more correct notions of that Sovereign, the Czar of hlttscovy,
used as he was to a purer atmosphere, could not give his appro.
Dation to any political change not effected by the enlightened ef-
forts of reason. It did appear, that in this feeling he had thought
proper to remonstrate, calling upon the Cortes of Spain to dis-
own the means by which the late changes werreffected, and to
pass certain resolutions affecting their internal affairs, by which
he presumed a check might be given to violence and military
disorder. It was incumbent, therefore, on the Members of that
House to ascertain whether any engagement existed between
this country, Russia, and the Allies, which went to justify such
an interference as this remonstrance of the Czar of Muscovy, or
to affect so essentially our relations with Spain.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that he did not understand!
the Russian Note in the same light as the Noble Lord. He could,
however, assure him, that there existed neither engagement nor
an understanding sheet of an engagement, that could justify any
interference by force. There was no ennagerrient against any
revolutionary danger but the Treaty of Pans in the year 1814,
which went to metre the stability of the pacification of Europe
from rewebdoiaary dangers pew:tiding from France.
Lord JOHN RUMMLL repressed himself satisfied with the
I:planation of the Noble` Lard.