Star.
London, England, 1829-07-25 00:00:00

. .
inner time; Dr. Arnett attended me frequently ; he
is not only my physician, but my personal friend. I
never saw Mrs. Scott and Pedley together any where.
I have not been before any Grand Jury upon any in-
dictment except this. I gave no directions for indict-
ing her for a conspiracy. I employed Ruthven to go to
Brussels for her attendance here. Ruthven was em-
ployed by me upon many things, and I don't know how
much he had for this business. I don't think he had any
money till he came back ; but I am careless about money
matters, and cannot remember any specific sum, with re-
ference to any particular business, unless my recollection
is strongly drawn to it.
Re-examined by Sir J. Scarlett—My reasons for not
wishing to see Mrs. Scott were, that I should enter into
no contract or liability with her.
Auguste Guilleau—l am in Mr. Wellesley's service ;
I received instructions from Mrs. Bligh, on the 21st of
February, to receive Mrs. Scott and Pedlev, and keep
them in the parlour without seeing any body till she
came ; I obeyed my instructions, and gave them instruc-
tions. Mr. Wellesley was in bed all that day ; I re-
mained in the back parlour till Mrs. Bligh came, and
then I went up to Mr. Wellesley, to tell him Mrs. Scott
had come ; I afterwards carried him up some tea; I do
not think I let them out ; I went into the parlour at six
in the evening, and they were gone then. My master
came down about half-past seven, and I think he dined
in the drawing-room ; I am sure he did not see Mrs.
Scott; he did not dress, but carne down in his dressing-
gown.
Cross-examined by Mr. Brodrick I can't recollect
*the day of the month ; I don't recollect having ever said
it was the 22d or 23d. The room I was in was next the
dining-room, and the door was open. I never left the
room till Mrs. Bligh came except for a few minutes, to
get a bottle of wine for Mrs. Scott. I went to Paris to
get papers from O'Meara, which I did not get. Mr.
Wellesley sent me ; but Pedley received his instructions
from Mrs. Bligh.
Re-examined by Sir J. Scarlett—ln the room where I
sat I could see the stairs, and must have seen any one
come down, and have heard it too.

Dr. Arnott—l visited Mr. 'Wellesley, in February,
1828, every second or third day in the beginning of the
mouth, and I find by my books I visited him every day
from the 18th to the 22d, and then not again till the
27th. I cannot recollect how he was particularly on the
21st, but I am stare he was in his bed-mom from the
18th to the 22d. My usual time of calling was between
two and five, and I conclude it was at that time I called
on the 21st.

Cross-examined by Mr. Denman—The witness then
banded in his diary for the 21st February, in which Mr.
Wellesley's name was written. Hu could not swear to his
having ♦isited Mr. W. on that day, but no doubt he had.

Mr. Powell—l saw Mrs. Scott on the '22d February,
1828, in Baker-street ; Mrs. Long Wellesley and Col.
Paterson were present, also I believe Mr. Pedley, who
then went by the name of Roberts, but not Mr. Wel-
lesley. I saw hor afterwards at Col. Paterson's, where
I had a very long conversation, and took down in writing
the substance of what passed in her presence ; I read it
over to her distinctly, and she signed it. She made no
objection, but told me it was correct ; I saw her at Mr.
Whitelock's on the 25th; 1 there made a second memo-
randum of what she said in presence of Mr. Whitelock
and his clerk, and she signed it, having heard it read.
It was mostly taken down front her own mouth, by her
own. dictation.

Craw-examined by Mr. Denman—l promised her
I nothing. She told me she was only anxious to repair the
mischief she had done Mr. Wellesley by her affidavits in.
Chancery. Mr. Wellesley was never present at these
meetings. I was at Milan formerly, collecting evidence
for a particular purpose. I acted under the advice of
Mr. Brougham and Mr. Home in the steps I took with
regard to Mrs. Scott.
Be-examined by Sir J. Scarlett—Mrs. Soon was afraid'
of being prosecuted by the Misses Long, and I promised'
to protect her as far as I could. She afterwards refused,
to come forward because Mr. Wellesley refused to give
het money, and then she went away.
The written statement was here put in and sread.
—Wickham, clerk to Whitelock, stated, that when
Mrs. Scott came to England she was desired to .make
.certain statements, which she did make. _

The evidence for the prosecution haring closed—
The Common Sergeant addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and commented on the evidence in support of the
assignments of peijury. It appeared by the evidence at
the time, that Mrs. Scott saw Mr. Wellesley in the pre-
sence of Col. Paterson. If that were so, he might ask the
jury what they thought of the prosecutor who did not call
Col. Paterson to prove whether he (Mr. Wellesley) was
present or not, giving directions ? Did he or not direct.
her to take papers to Mr. Powell ? Col. Paterson might
have proved that point ; and as he did not appear, the
second assignment of perjury was also dour away. The
next question was whether Mrs. Scutt.knew why,she was
taken to Henley ? Upon that point he should say the
case was a gross instance of oppression and treachery.
The woman came from Paris to show where certain
witnesses were to be found. She saw Mr. Powell and
Mr. Whitelock. Those persons met her, and gut her to
sign papers- the signed under a solemn pledge that those
papers were never to he used against her. It wa4.said
the pledge was conditional. Why was i% not in, writing?
Why did those attornies act improperly with an ignorant
woman ? Was that the mode in which aftornies ought to
take depositions ? No. It might do in the inquisitorial
Courts of Milan, but would put an end to justice in the
Courts of England. The fact was, after all, that she
was accused of going out of town with the attorney's
.clerk, who took improper liberties. What . had her
conduct to do with the question of shillings andpencebe-
tween Pedley.and Mr.Wellealey ? There werethree allege-
tions of perjury, and he did not consider either. proved.
Who could, believe that this woman would take a journey
from Paris, without she had been invited, to oblige Mr.
Wellesley ? There was another strong feature iu the mute.
Bow-street officers were sent to Brussels to take her
into custody. They had no authority there, and nolcms
rolens she was brought to England to be incarcerated.—
The object was to get her conyicted,of perjury,. so. that
the proceedings in Chancery respecting .Nlr. Wellesley's
•childreu might stand on a rotten foundation. If that could
have been done with justice, it would 11V1. been right.—
It would have been necessary to remove the. stigma front
the prosecutor, of haviug, by immorality and, miscon,,
•duct, removed his children front a &titer's roof. -
He might ask the Jury whether the witnesses hoard that
day were not men likely to support any great .question
.
in which their own interest concerned ? Let then)
lay their hands on their hearts, and say, whether Mrs:
,Scott,waanot as much entitled to credit as some other
,parties ? ' But Mrs. Scott was only
,a speck in the great
Irinie whicload ',Utak(' and overwhelmed the coentry '
for several years. He disnOseedthe cium,withe CPRMence
sad contempt, for the charge, convinced- Oat- tbaJwt
,would say, in 'the exercise of:their solemn judgment, t.'.
no sinwlo part Pt.tine gharga, hack heen. estalAished.
t Lord Tenterden stated the charges contained in the in-

_ r•: