The Earl of Liverpool said, that if a sworn interpreter, when produced, did not give proper satisfaction in the discharge of his duty, the opposite party ought to be called upon, or at least such he thought was the course of proceeding, to furnish another. He still thought that the production of a new interpreter must be grounded on some objection taken to the preceding one. No man was more competent than the Right Rev. Prelate to judge of the fitness of the interpreter to perform his duty; and he thought that, without going further, enough had occurred to justify their lordships in calling upon the opposite counsel for another interpreter.

Lord Grenville observed, that a word may have two meanings, and in such a case it was desirable that the interpreter should state both, to enable their lordships to ascertain from a witness which of the two he meant to deliver. If the interpreter had, however, made a mistake in translating words which any noble lord was of opinion had but one meaning, then he thought that the person discovering the error was right, was indeed bound to apprize their lordships of the circumstance. He felt, therefore, obliged to the Right Rev. Prelate for cautioning them against the error into which they might be led by the present interpreter.

The Lord-Chancellor called upon the counsel for the Queen to produce another interpreter.

Mr. Brougham said it was no fault of his that he was not prepared at the moment with a German interpreter: he had this day expected none but Italian witnesses, and had accordingly prepared himself with only an Italian interpreter. The difficulty in which he was now placed, and which had caused an interruption in their lordships' proceedings, was the consequence of the decision of their lordships, the wisdom of which he did not now presume to question, by which he was refused a list not only of the names, but even of the places to which the charges applied. It was the ignorance in which he was thus kept that left him unprepared with a German interpreter at this moment. The first witnesses were Italian, the next was a German, and perhaps after that witness was done with, he (Mr. Brougham) would, on the spur of the moment, be called upon for a Tunisian, a Turkish, a Greek, or an Egyptian interpreter; for in all these countries the Queen had been she was at Tunis, Athens, Egypt, and the Holy Land, and from all these places he was, he presumed, to conjecture that interpreters would he required. This was the difficulty imposed upon her Majesty's counsel by the refusal of their lordships to furnish a list of the places to which the charges referred.

The Attorney-General replied, that his learned friend could not, with justice, complain of being taken unawares respecting the necessity of a German interpreter, for he had, in his opening speech, distinctly alluded to a circumstance occurring at Carlsruhe.

Mr. Brougham hoped his learned friend would save the trouble of any future mistake by stating to what country his next witness belonged. The Attorney-General made no reply.

The Earl of Morley said that the better way at present would be to call on the interpreter for a further explanation of the words used by the witness, and repeat the German, to have it heard by such of their lordships as understood that language.

The Duke of Hamilton said, that as the counsel for her Majesty were unprepared at this moment with a German interpreter, and as no blame whatever attached to them, under the circumstances, for not being provided with such a person, he thought their lordships had better postpone the further examination until to-morrow.

The Earl of Liverpool said, he saw no objection to a reasonable delay, if required by the counsel.

Earl Grey concurred with his noble friend (Lord Grenville,) that it was quite impossible for any noble lord to hear a mistake committed by the interpreter without at once interposing to set the matter right. But then he trusted their lordships would feel the extreme inconvenience of this sort of interlocutory discussion among themselves; and he humbly suggested, that whenever, in future, any noble lord thought the translation of the interpreter imperfect, he should, by a question of his own at the instant, endeavour to have the answer accurately conveyed.

After a few words from counsel at both sides, it was agreed that no other witness should at that hour of the day (4 o'clock) be called.

The Lord-Chancellor put it to their lordships whether tomorrow, being Saturday, they would sit after 4 o'clock? [Intermingled cries of "until 5 o'clock."]

It was, however, eventually determined that they should not sit to-morrow after 4 o'clock.

The Queen entered the house and took her seat, during the examination of the last witness, and retired when the discussion began.

SEVENTH DAY.

Saturday, August 26.

The usual forms having been gone through, at a quarter past ten the counsel were called in.

Mr. Charles Karsten being sworn interpreter for the Queen, the examination of Barbara Kress was resumed.

The Attorney-General requested, that the last questions put to the witness, and her answers, should be read and interpreted to her.

Mr. Gurney read his notes.

Attorney-General.-The witness has said she saw the Princess sitting on Bergami's bed. Describe what happened afterwards? The King's Interpreter. She asks, is it on the same evening? Before the witness withdrew what happened? She says the Princess jumped up: I withdrew, I was frightened.

The Lord-Chancellor.-Translate her answers direct as she gives them, in the first person; when she says "I," do not you say "she."

The witness states that she then withdrew? Yes.

The Earl of Morton wished that the counsel would also take care not to use the third person in asking questions, but to put them in the second.

Did you make the bed in the chamber, No. 12? Yes.

Did you at any time discover any thing on that bed? On or in the bed?

In the bed? In the bed I found a cloak.

Was it a cloak belonging to a female? Probably, because it had behind it a capot.

What did you do with the cloak? As I took it up, I spread it asunder. [This was afterwards explained to mean that she unfolded it.]

At what time did you find this cloak in the bed? In the morning, when I made the bed.

Ask her to describe the cloak more particularly? It was silk k; the colour gray.

Did you afterwards see any person wearing that cloak? The servant took it out of my hands.

That is not an answer. Did you see any one wearing that cloak, after you took it out of the bed? I saw a cloak next day on the Princess, but cannot swear that it was the same.

Was it similar to that you had seen in the bed? Yes; it was of the same colour, and of the same make, with a hood.

Did you at any time, on making up the bed, see any thing on the sheets?

Here some observations passed between the interpreters on the answer given by the witness.

Queen's Interpreter. The word she has used cannot be interpreted in English.

The King's Interpreter was directed to state what she had said. She says, that when she made the bed the sheets were wust. The Queen's Interpreter.-What she says may mean “in disorder." The proper meaning is "waste:" it is an adjective. Lord Hampden.-Is it not a substantive also? As a substanmeans a desert."

tive it

After some conversation, the King's interpreter was directed, if he could not explain the word in English, to ask the witness what she meant by wust.

Interpreter. (flecken.)

She is at a loss what to say: she says

"stains"

Mr. Brougham wished that whatever answers the witness gave to the questions which were put to her might be interpreted word for word.

What sort of stains were they that you saw? As much as I have seen they were white.

Are you married? Yes.

Here the witness became agitated and cried.-A glass of water was brought, and some minutes' pause took place until she recovered herself.

Ask her what the stains appeared to be? I did not inspect them so narrowly. What I have seen is, that they were white. Have you ever made the beds of married persons? Yes, I made all the beds of the house in general.

What was the appearance of the marks you saw on Bergami's bed? You will pardon me? I have not reflected on this. Were they dry or wet? They were wet.

Here the examination in chief was closed.

Mr. Brougham said he wished to put a few questions to the witness in the present stage of the proceedings; but he could only do it with the understanding that he should be allowed to reserve the bulk of his cross-examination until another period. He thought it necessary to state this, as what had occurred in the case of another witness was considered irregular; but, according to the understanding which existed relative to the course of the evidence, he was entitled, in consequence of the refusal of the list of witnesses, to cross-examine them all on a future occasion.

The Lord-Chancellor objected to this mode of proceeding, upon the ground of irregularity, but after some explanation from Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman, he appeared to agree that the cross-examination should now proceed. He wished to have a clear understanding of the course which was to be pursued. The house could only judge by the tendency of the crossexamination.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Brougham.

How long were you chambermaid at the inn? A year and three quarters. I was not married then.

What service were you in before you went to the inn?

Here a conversation arose on her answer, and the names of some places were mentioned, with the addition that she had been just before at her father's. The question was then put again in this form

Were you in any service before that? Yes.

In what family? In several families.
Name one of them? Marvey.

What is Marvey? He is the landlord of an inn.
Were you there as chambermaid? Yes.

How long were you chambermaid at that house? Half a-year. Where did Marvey live? Near the village of Berggarten. Where were you before you lived with Marvey? I was a servant at the court of the Grand Duke of Baden.

How long were you there? Six years.

How old are you now? Past twenty-five.

Were you a servant before that? No: I came to that place on leaving school.

Had

you ever any other occupation than that of a servant? I was going to say that I had been in another place after I left

school.

What place? At Carlsruhe.

What was the name of the family you were with at Carlsruhe ? Schnabel.

What is Schnabel? The landlord of an inn.

What was your employment there? I was kellermagd.

What is the office of kellermagd? To cleanse the public room of the inn.

Had you any other employment in that inn? No.

Is the waiter in an inn also called kellerian?

Kellerman.

Is it the business of the kellermagd to attend upon the kellerman? She does nothing but cleanse the rooms.

Have you lived in any other situations but those you have mentioned? None.

How long have you been here?

Two days and three weeks. Whom did you come over with? A courier whose name is Reissmer.

Was any body else with you? I took my brother with me, because I did not like to go by myself.

What is his name? Frederick Fliendsen, he is about twentyeight years old.

Who paid your expenses coming over? I do not know what the courier paid during that time.

Who asked you to come over here? Our minister, Monsieur at Darmstadt.

Did any other minister speak to you on the subject? When I was there, I saw nobody else.

Did any other minister speak to you on the subject of coming over here? Yes, Monsieur De Galle, who is at court; I do not know what situation he holds there; and the ambassador to the Court of Wurtemberg did, as well as Monsieur De Grimm, and Monsieur Rathvegn.

Who and what is Monsieur Rathvegn? They told me that he was the minister or ambassador to Hanover.