Preamble

HL Deb 26 October 1820 vol 3 cc1186-238

The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive" Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Eliza"beth, &c."; and for hearing counsel for and against the same: The Counsel were accordingly called in. Then,

Dr. Lushington

addressed their lordships as follows:

If, my lords, I had been left to the exercise of my own discretion—much more, had I been at liberty to have followed the dictates of my own inclination, I should not now have occasion to solicit your lordships indulgent and patient attention. But, my lords, upon the present occasion, I am acting in the discharge of a duty, in obedience to the judgment of my learned colleagues, who have thought that this case is so extensive, in all its branches—so important—so difficult—that even after all the exertions of my learned friend, Mr. Denman, some little remains, which ought to be stated to your lordships. Your lordships must feel, that the task which I have now to fulfil is one not very easy to be performed. Your lordships attention is in some degree exhausted—the subject is in some degree become trite—then, my lords, what is my painful situation? the difficulties are accumulated tenfold, and I come to the performance of the office, conscious that the ability to discharge it is beyond all measure infe- rior. But, my lords, I have one consolation in my difficulties—the consolation that, in the judgment of all my learned friends, this case stands upon so firm a foundation, that even the discussion of an unskilful advocate cannot materially injure it in your lordships view. And I have the additional comfort of feeling that the power of truth will prevail, and that the more this subject is discussed, the more satisfied your lordships will be, of the innocence of my royal client.

My lords; I shall use my utmost endeavours to avoid repetition, where repetition can be avoided; but your lordships must know, that no human skill, no power of eloquence infinitely great, could by possibility bring to your lordships, standing alone, the few observations that my learned friend has left unmade. Your lordships know, that those observations never could receive their weight—hardly indeed could be intelligible—unless they be taken in reference to some of the circumstances which have been already so amply discussed.

Now, my lords, it is my duty, in the first instance, to make one or two observations upon the charge which has been made against her majesty. My lords, I have, during the whole course of my professional life, been conversant with cases of adultery; but there are circumstances in this case which, I must confess, I believe not only to be unprecedented, but of which there is not even the shadow of resemblance in all the records of past times, in those courts which have peculiar cognizance of the subject between husband and wife. It is not, my lords, that the tribunal is new—it is not for all the various anomalies which exist in this trial—it is not that the government is the party accusing it—it is not that the government forms a part of the very Judges whom I address—these things, my lords, might have occurred by possibility before; but, my lords, there are circumstances here which might, if indeed they were probable, equally have occurred in other instances.

My lords; the first which I advert to, is the age of the party accused; and this I venture to say without fear of contradiction, that no precedent can be found in modern times, where a husband has sought to divorce himself from a wife, accusing her of adultery at the age of fifty. My lords, this is one great and extraordinary discriminating circumstance in this case—it is an improbability which I think well deserving your lordships serious consideration. Of wives separated from their husbands—of wives who have scarcely ever lived with their husbands from the day that their marriage was celebrated—there are instances without end; but not even in any one of those cases, nor in any other case where wife and husband have cohabited down to the very period when a divorce has been sued for, is there one where the wife has attained the age, I believe I may say, of five and forty.

My lords; there is one other circumstance—the husband of the lady accused, has been twenty-four years separated from that wife—separated, my lords, by his own act, by his own choice, by his own free will—separated, my lords, not in consequence of any misconduct of that wife—not in consequence of even a breath of suspicion having at that period attached to the character of his royal consort, but in the wayward indulgence of his own fancy, breaking asunder the solemn bonds in which God had united them—for the sake of self gratification was the husband separated from his wife—Now, my lords, how stand I then? were his majesty a simple individual, lives there in the world a man so bold who would dare to tell your lordships that he had a title to complain—that he had injuries which ought to be redressed—that he had laboured under inconveniences from which he ought to be relieved as a husband? My lords, then the King has no right to seek redress. Let no man dare to say, that though the King is relieved from various sanctions of the laws of men—let no one within these walls presume to say, that he is emancipated from the law of God—let no mind dare to say, that the assertion in this bill is not founded in utter falsehood—"Whereas her royal highness, further unmindful of her exalted rank and station, and of her duty to your majesty"—what duty, my lords? what duty that is not reciprocal in the marriage life? Is there one divine law for kings, and another for men? Is the plighted troth at the altar to bind the simple individual, and set free the king upon his throne? Is there one divine law for the common individual, and another for the sceptered monarch? My lords, what is the plighted troth, and how has it been kept and preserved? "To love"! where shall I seek for the marks of it? "To comfort!" where shall I look for one trace of it? Shall I go back to 1806? Shall I come to 1813? Shall I look, my lords, to the intercourse between the mother and the child? "To honour!" Has that been observed? We know that when exiled from this land the spirit of persecution lived, and followed her even to her resting place—my lords, it is to me inconceivably painful to dwell upon these subjects; because I know and feel, that every discussion on these topics shakes the throne and weakens the monarchy. I know, that when the private acts of kings are brought before the world, there are individuals without number to whom it is a pleasure and a delight to magnify their errors and to exaggerate their failings. My lords, that is not my will. It is the discharge of a solemn duty which has compelled me to advert to it. I have done it as speedily as I could; and I leave it with the greatest pleasure.

My lords; thus far it were almost needless to follow a subject of this description; but, if I were to take that topic which if mentioned in a case, and if true, at once rouses the attention of the judges—what should I say upon connivance? My lords, what should I say of a husband insensible to his own honor—what should I say upon the offer of fifty thousand pounds a year, on condition of living abroad, without a single restriction, without one single direction that the adulterous intercourse imputed should not be carried on in all its gross impurity? What should we say to an individual who came here and prayed for justice acting thus? who has said, "go your ways," not as my learned friend Mr. Denman said last night, "and sin no more," but "go and indulge your passion; revel in all the profligacy of degraded intercourse; and you shall be furnished with the means?"

My lords; I am happy to say, that I am not under the necessity of introducing another topic to your lordships consideration—I am not under the necessity of saying one word upon recrimination. We have adduced no evidence—thanks to the wisdom of my learned friends who confidentially advise her majesty—thanks to her discretion and propriety—this House and the nation are saved the consequences of such a measure. But, my lords, without that, I say again, that unless your lordships are prepared to violate the law of God and man—unless that reverend bench which forms a part of those judges whom I now address, are prepared to forget and abandon the tenets of the gospel, it cannot—it dare not—pronounce for this divorce.

My lords; before I enter upon an examination of the evidence, permit me to say a word or two as to the principles by which your lordships are bound to try this case. It is not, my lords, that I seek to obtain at your lordships hands an acquittal in point of law—it is not that I think the case requires that I should adhere to nice technicalities, but it is to prevent your lordships from being misled by my learned friends on the other side. My lords, his majesty's solicitor-general in summing up his case to your lordships quoted a decision of the learned judge who presides in the consistorial court of London, a decision which was given in the case of Loveden v. Loveden. Now, my lords, to the soundness of that authority—to the matchless talent of that judge—no man bows with greater deference than I do—no man has had greater opportunities of knowing and esteeming his wonderful powers—but I am surprised that my learned friend should have sought, from an insulated passage, to extract a principle applicable generally to cases of fact, as if, my lords, any human being supposed that adultery was a crime the proof of which was to consist in the establishment of certain things certain indicia; of proof, which never existed in any other case. Now, my lords, these are the words quoted, speaking of the circumstances. "It is not necessary to prove a direct fact of adultery—it could not be so proved in one case in a hundred. It must be deduced by inference leading to a just conclusion. If this were not sufficient, there would be no protection for marital rights. It is not necessary to enumerate the various grounds of inference—many are mentioned in the ancient writers. But, besides those, there are many others depending upon general manners and other incidental circumstances, which are continually changing. They must be such as to lead a reasonable and just man to the conclusion of guilt. It must not be a rash conclusion, or founded upon artificial reasoning. It must not be different from what would strike a plain man." Now, my lords, what do your lordships suppose was the situation in which sir William Scott was placed when he delivered that memorable judgment, argued, as the case was, at great length, discussed and disputed in two courts? Why, my lords, sir William Scott said this, "Here are acts of indecent familiarity proved by witnesses above all exception." My lords, what more did he say? "Here are the letters of Mrs. Loveden, the intercepted letters from her to Mr. Barker," of what nature and description and what character do your lordships think? "Such," says sir William Scott, "as many a woman who would have entered a brothel would have been ashamed to have written." My lords, to the contents of those letters I will not allude, save by saying, that no man alive could read them and not have a most perfect conviction; and legal proof too, that the fact had taken place. But, my lords, as I am talking of legal grounds, permit me to state one fact to your lordships—the letters were evidence against the wife in the ecclesiastical court, they were no evidence against the defendant in the action for damages, and the jury acquitted that defendant, or rather I should say, there was a verdict for the defendant. All the other evidence, as your lordships know, was there; every tiring else was before the jury; but there was a verdict for the defendant, although amongst other things, as my learned friend reminds me, Mr. Barker had passed a night by stealth in the room of Mrs. Loveden, though how far she was there at the time there was some doubt left upon the case.

Now, my lords, I think it is a little unfortunate, that my learned friends should have selected this case for their principle; but I am happy to say, that upon another occasion which I shall shortly allude to, the same learned judge did draw a disjunction which I only wish your lordships to draw for the sake of preventing error and (I repeat it) not because my client's case requires it. My lords, in the case of Mortimer v. Mortimer decided in July 1816, the proof was so strong, that the counsel for the wife were upon the point of declining to argue it—that learned judge who, whatever be the station of the parties never forgets the interests of justice, insisted upon that case being argued, and, my lords, it fell to me to argue it. So convinced was he of the guilt of the lady, that he actually allowed additional proof to be brought in after that hearing, and when he gave his sentence pronouncing that the husband had failed in proof of the adultery, he used these memorable words—"I may have a moral conviction of her guilt; but I have no judicial proof." My lords, again I beseech your lordships, not for one instant to suppose that I am asking from your hands a verdict, because there is a deficiency of legal proof against your moral conviction. My lords, I ask for a verdict because I say that there is no proof in the present case which any man of honesty, of discretion, of judgment and of common diligence, must not repudiate as utterly destitute of all credibility. I have my lords adverted to this case, that your lordships may not run away with the erroneous idea, that adultery is to be established by any other proof, by any other evidence, in any other form, than that in which any other offence is to be proved before your lordships.

Now, my lords, if I may be permitted to state the case as I understand it—in two words, it is this—there is ample opportunity for adultery no man can doubt it—here are circumstances which, when coupled with the opportunity, lead to a demonstration of the guilt of the party accused. Now, my lords, that opportunity for adultery should be the ground of finding a verdict of guilty against any human being, not one of your lordships would allow for one instant; but I admit, that if you see acts of indecent familiarity clearly and satisfactorily established in evidence—and if you see the parties seeking opportunities in which a criminal intercourse may be enjoyed—coupling together these two circumstances, I admit it is not necessary to go further. But, my lords, the circumstances must be proved with the same degree of certainty as the opportunity.

Now, my lords, if I were to argue this as an ordinary case, do your lordships suppose that I should trouble you with a long argument in disproof of many of the minor charges which have been made against the Queen upon the present occasion? Mo, my lords, I will tell you how I should treat the question. I should show you, that Demont was perjured—I should show you that Sacchi was perjured—I should show you that Restelli and Majoochi were perjured—and, if your lordships had not before I had got to the end of my argument stopped me, I should have been inclined to throw up my brief at that instant. For when I had shown that the four principal witnesses in the case had been guilty of perjury, is there any judge to whom the principles of justice are in any degree familiar, that would allow a defendant to be put upon his trial upon minor charges, supported by weak evidence? Gracious God! where would be the security of life, where would be the safety for any man's life, character and property—where would this end? "I have shown one, two, three, four, five, six perjured." "Go on; if you do not prove the seventh and the eighth, you shall have a verdict of guilty against you." Why, my lords, how is it that, by the wisdom and mercy of Providence, we are often enabled to detect foul conspiracies or wicked projects? By bringing to light or by contradicting certain, parts of the falsehoods which have been uttered. But that gracious Power which has given us the means of so elucidating truth, has not given the ability to man of following it beyond the bounds of necessity, or of throwing open all the various paths of iniquity, as if they were viewed with the omniscient power of the Almighty. We, my lords, can only ascertain the truth by that limited examination which our restricted faculties give us. We can only find certainty, by fixing upon those safer guards which reason and justice have assured to us.

My lords; on whom, upon the present occasion, lies the burthen of proof? Those of your lordships who are even ever so little cognizant with proceedings in' courts of law, know, the duties which attach upon him who affirms any proposition. You know that the plaintiff in an action is bound to make out his demand. Much more, my lords, do you ever hold in sacred remembrance, that he who seeks to take away the life or character of an individual, is bound, by every principle of eternal justice, by every rule recognised by the law, to establish that guilt by full, free, unsuspected, and unsuspicious testimony. He has no right, who takes upon himself the odious character of accuser, to say, "Thus far I will go, and no further. I have done enough, that you the victim (it may be) of my malice, shall not depart out of court without a suspicion upon your fame and character." That, my lords, will not do—be must take out the whole—the failure of his proof is the justification of the accused—no individual yet alive in any country, in any mode of trial, I believe, since the dark ages, was ever put upon the task of first establishing his innocence—since the day when the folly and superstition of our ancestors led their miserable victim through ordeal fires and across burning ploughshares to take the risk of life and death—never since that day has any one yet been asked to prove his innocence in the first instance.

Now, my lords, I come to the last of this case—I come to the consideration of those charges which my learned friends say they have clearly proved; that they are irreconcileable with innocence; that they are the forerunners of guilt. My lords the first case is the conduct of the Queen towards Bergami. My lords, his majesty's attorney-general, commenting with great ingenuity upon the facts which he was to prove, adverted to the principles which governed human, nature and said, "I will show you, that the Queen so conducted herself, that guilt is the necessary inference to be drawn. I will show you, that she was so much under the influence of passion, that his will was her way, his pleasure almost her duty; and then," said he, "if I prove these facts, an intercourse of the greatest familiarity, a degrading intimacy must have taken place, that can have only arisen from the last favour having been granted to Bergami." Now, my lords, what are those facts? My learned friend, the attorney-general, says, "the natural effect of such an intercourse is, to alter the comparative distance between the parties"—my lords, it is verity itself to say so—"I mean, the distance which ought to exist between a person of royal rank, and one of her menial servants. But, when once a person of that exalted rank demeans and degrades herself, to such an intimacy as that which I have described, it naturally creates, in the manner and temper of the person with whom that intercourse is formed, a freedom and an assumption which, under other circumstances, he could not venture to assume. My lords, such was the case here," says the attorney-general: "it was observed by the domestics that Bergami's conduct was more haughty—that there was an assumption of more importance—and the whole demeanor of her majesty towards this person when she was unobserved by those persons of rank and station about her, was such as convinced those who had an opportunity of observing it, that this intercourse subsisted."^* Now, my lords, I undertake to demonstrate to your lordships, by the evidence ^* See Vol. 2, p. 748. which has been produced in this cause, that no such intimacy—that no such familiarity ever existed—that there was no want of respect, no want of regard, to all the decencies and decorums of life, from either of those parties to the other. Your lordships will, I am sure, feel, that I should not discharge my duty, when I make an assertion so broad as this, if I did net point out to your lordships the evidence upon which that assertion is.grounded—that evidence upon which I feel myself entitled to say, it is indisputably proved.

First, my lords, I take the adverse evidence; and your lordships shall see how credible and how deserving of attention it is at your lordships hands. First, my lords, we have Majoochi, in page 10, "Pergami had more authority, higher authority. There was rather"—good God, my lords, after such an opening,—"There was rather a familiarity." This was their chosen witness—the man nurtured for the task of coming here to betray his sovereign. This, the hand of their cause, can bear them out no further in their ground, than that there was "rather a familiarity." "Was there an apparent distance kept up between the princess and Pergami, or was there an apparent intimacy and friendship between them?" "Rather a familiarity." And here, by-the-by, give me leave to observe, that my learned friend the solicitor-general put his questions so ingeniously throughout this examination, that the witness always knew, to demonstration, what answer it was that he wanted: he drew the contrast between the distance and the familiarity, so that this witness knew perfectly well what was required: but, after all, that is the sum total of his evidence.

Now, my lords, I come to the evidence of Demont, p. 257. "From the moment that her royal highness reached Naples, she and Pergami were very familiar one towards the other." In p. 265, the same witness states, that "at Milan and the Villa Villani she made no observation whatever." My lords, I really thought this was a shrewd lady when I saw her—I thought she was as likely a person to have made observations upon every thing, as any individual I ever set my eyes upon; but, my lords, as it has turned out, she made no observation except, that Pergami and her royal highness were very free towards each other. Now, my lords, I do believe that, with the exception of two or three of the masons, admirable judges of the conduct which the Queen ought to observe towards her chamberlain—with the exception of those persons, who were pleased to say, that they walked together like true friends—like husband and wife—in the whole of this evidence your lordships will not find one single affirmative assertion of this existing familiarity.

But now, my lords, let us look on the other side. I have to present to your lordships the testimony of twelve witnesses, going over not only the time when this intimacy was said to be at its height, but about the Queen's person, from her entrance into Naples, until she left St. Omer's. We shall see what sort of testimony they have given—I will not dishonour them by comparing their credit with the two witnesses I have before adverted to. My lord Guilford is asked, in p. 507, "any improper familiarity?" "No, certainly none." In p. 508, "Nothing particular in the Queen's manner to Pergami." In p. 509, "Pergami's deportment nothing particular, very respectful—the manners of Pergami were perfectly unobtrusive, not forward." My lords, this is the evidence of that nobleman.

I come next to the evidence of lord Glenbervie in p. 511, "Pergami's conduct to her royal highness that of a servant—nothing like disrespect." Now comes lady Charlotte Lindsay, whose testimony I think, was given in the fairest and most honourable manner, and who, I think, was unduly used by my learned friends on the other side. In p. 514, your lordships will find this: "Pergami conducted himself towards the Queen as a person in his situation would naturally conduct himself." Now, my lords, mark that lady Charlotte Lindsay was with the Queen in the months of March and April 1815, when this alleged intercourse was said to have subsisted five months. Is she, my lords, a person so destitute of penetration, so deprived of the ordinary power of observation, as to have let any thing pass unobserved in the conduct of her royal mistress. The House at large can judge from the talents she exhibited when she was examined—every individual who has had the honour of her acquaintance knows, that for sagacity, for talent, and for ablility, she is infinitely above the usual standard of her sex. Now, my lords, again, "the Queen behaved to him as a mistress to a servant"—when she is speaking of that fact, the manner which the Queen used towards her servants, she says, "The same familiarity as to Sicard and others."

My lords; I now come to the earl of Landaff. He says, that he saw "nothing improper in the Queen's conduct or demeanor—nothing likely to reflect disgrace upon the country." Mr. Craven, in p. 537, saw "no impropriety of conduct, or degrading familiarity;" and this, my lords, neither at Naples, when Bergami was a courier behind her chair, nor subsequently when he sat at the same table with his royal mistress. Now for sir William Gell; in p. 559, he says, "There was nothing indecorous or improper in the least. Pergami acted as he ought." And now for this question, such as I believe seldom has been put in a court of justice, for the purpose of examining into the guilt or innocence of the accused—not, my lords, that I mean to complain of the question upon the present occasion: because I have felt throughout the whole of this trial, "Give me but an honest witness, and ask what you please—give me but one who has the sanction of an oath to bind—who has a character to lose—who has some pretence for standing in the world upright—away with the forms of law; away with all the technicalities of examination, cross-examination, or re-examination—search and probe to the bottom—it is sound, and will bear it." My lords, this is the question, "Did you ever observe any thing in the conduct of the princess to Pergami, in her conduct, manners, conversation, or looks, to induce you to entertain an idea, that there was an adulterous intercourse between them?"^* Now, my lords, see how her majesty has been tried—see to what an ordeal of unheard-of severity she has been exposed! If in the course of the residence of sir W. Gell with her at Naples—if in the course of the subsequent three or four months that he again joined her at Rufnnelli—there had been one single act of impropriety, one loose expression escaping either in wantonness of joy, or in the innocence of overflowing gaiety—one even dropping under feelings of irritation—one word—one act—one look—which for a moment had clouded his mind with suspicion, what must have been his answer to such a question? Gracious God! My lords, to be tried—not by facts which you all judge of—but to be tried by the possibility of suspicion ^* See p. 360, of the present Volume. having crossed the mind of those with whom you have lived—when there was no tie upon the tongue—when the heart and the soul were released in all the confidence of unsuspecting intimacy, so to be tried and so to be acquitted, show me in this world the parallel! Sir William Gell says, first, "I never saw the Queen speak to Pergami but on matters of business, though I was in the house three mouths at once with them." "Can you give a more distinct answer?" "I never did." And yet, my lords, my learned friends will presently call upon you to form conclusions from those circumstances such as the individual who gave them never once—not formed conclusions—my lords, what am I speaking of? never once entertained even the shadow of a thought.

"But," say my learned friends, "these were individuals of high rank and character; the Queen was upon her guard with them." My lords, I will beg leave therefore to introduce to your lordships notice one of a different description. At p. 594, Sicard first says, "the Queen's manner of treating her servants was uncommonly kind, almost to a fault—Pergami's behaviour was always proper."—"Did you ever see any impropriety or familiarity between her royal highness and Pergami?" "Never, never."—"What was the Queen's conduct to Pergami?" Now, my lords, what does this (old servant of the Queen say? "Her manner of treating her servants was uncommonly kind, almost to a fault." He, my lords, for twenty years has experienced that kindness. How melancholy is it to think, that that feeling of kindness and benevolence which has endeared her to the hearts of all who knew her, whether they were subject to the dictation of her will and pleasure, or whether they were destined to the happier fate of enjoying her society, should now be converted into crime, and turned, as it were, into poison, to destroy her who showed kindness even to her persecutors! She forgave the ruffian Credi, though he had sold himself to destroy her honour. She has forgiven those who have done her evil ten-fold ten times—that very disposition to kindness is now to be construed into familiarity of a licentious nature! My lords, I would say here, that I feel Sicard's evidence to be true. In the course of this inquiry, particularly whilst my learned friends were absent, day by day it was my painful task to harass and distress her majesty with nauseous inquiries—necessary, but still nauseous—when she was tired and fatigued at meal-times; yet, my lords, upon all occasions I found the same condescension, the same regard for the comfort and feelings of others, which all who have been examined, give her the praise of—which she is as remarkable for having shown to others, as she is as remarkable for having herself experienced the very reverse. My lords, Sicard farther is asked, "Was this manner towards her servants generally to all her servants, or was it confined to any one individual among them?" "To all."

Now, my lords, Dr. Holland says, that the behaviour of Bergami to her royal highness was "unpresuming and respectful," My lords, what! was it unpresuming and respectful? Why, Mr. Attorney General, what becomes of this "freedom and an assumption, which, under other circumstances, they would not venture to assume, my lords, such was the case here." Was it the case here, my lords? We will follow on the train—Dr. Holland, denies all impropriety of conduct—he never observed any indecent, improper, or immodest behaviour. Then he is asked this question,—a question of opinion—"Did you see any conduct calculated to bring disgrace upon the character of the country?" "I believe I can answer decidedly not."^* "The Queen's demeanor to all her servants was extremely familiar. I should say at once,"—now mark it, my lords, this is p. 620,—"that I never observed any difference between her manners to Pergami, and her manners to her principal servants."† Now, I ask, whether it is consistent with possibility, that the Queen, if under the influence of this passion carried away to disgrace herself, could so control herself, could so place her conduct in trammels, that Dr. Holland could give this evidence with truth?

Now, my lords, the next is Mr. Mills, in p. 622. He saw them together frequently—his evidence applies to three periods, to Rome in 1817, to Pesaro in 1819, and to Rome in 1820; and he says, that he "has seen them together frequently, but that he never saw the smallest impropriety of conduct." At p. 624, he says, "There was no difference in the Queen's household in those three periods." "He never saw any thing in the slightest degree derogatory to the ho- ^* See Vol. 2, p. 748. † See p. 425 of the present Volume. nour of the English empire, or calculated to wound the moral feelings of the country." Again, "Nothing in public or private to which a just exception could be taken."—Again, when asked this question, "Did Pergami treat the Queen with the respect due to her exalted rank."—"I never saw him behave otherwise than with the utmost respect."^*

Now, my lords, consider this, that even in the year 1820, Bergami treats the Queen with respect. Why, my lords, is that possible—is it consistent—if he had ever at any one time been on terms of criminal intimacy with this lady—if he ever, presuming upon that intimacy, had treated her with disrespect, I ask my learned friends by what process of the human mind, by what analysis of the human character, by what mode of reasoning, or, if reason they have none, by any thing bearing the slightest degree of similarity in any former case in the whole world, they ever knew respect returned after it had once been violated by the knowledge that a criminal intercourse subsisted between the parties. Mr. Attorney General might as well seek to demonstrate to your lordships, that the water will flow up to its source, or that impossibilities are capable of proof.

Now, my lords, I told your lordships I would show you that Bergami's conduct towards her majesty was so at the beginning, so in the middle, so at the end. Hear lieutenant Hownam—he was three years with the Queen—At p. 723, † he negatives all impropriety, indecency, or any thing degrading to the Queen.—He says, he "never saw the Queen walk arm in arm with the baron until he dined at table constantly." I come now to Olivieri: "The manners of Pergami were those of a respectful servant." He says, he "never saw any thing improper or indecorous in his conduct towards the Queen." He describes her manners in these terms: "Her conduct and demeanor towards her suite was affable, but dignified." ‡

My lords; the last of these witnesses is Vassali, and he says, staying with the Queen up to the time she left St. Omer's for England, that "he has never witnessed the smallest impropriety of conduct between her and the baron." I ^* See p. 429 of the present Volume, † See p. 512 of the present Volume. ‡ Ibid, p. 920. trust, my lords, I may now be permitted to say, that I have, by reference to this evidence, demonstrated the truth of the proposition I set out with—that the conduct of the Queen towards this person during the time that the bill charges, was perfectly consistent with their relative situations in life, perfectly destitute of all culpability, and that that ground which the Attorney-general so ingeniously endeavoured to lay for his proposition, falls from beneath his feet, and leaves him to combat the remainder of the facts without any thing in the nature of an inference even to support the alleged criminality.

My lords; the next statement was, that the Queen had parted with her English suite. Your lordships will ever bear in mind, that these circumstances, taken individually, no man would rely upon; but they have been, by ray learned friends, carefully formed into a whole, so that though no one could rely upon one singly, if taken as a whole, they might go to establish conviction. Now, my lords, my mode of disposing of this case is, to show your lordships that each and every one of those averments are unsound. Says, my learned friend, the Attorney-general,—"Here is a fact that needs no comment; it speaks volumes." My lords, it is put thus—the Queen having formed this degrading intercourse, conscious of the shame that attached to her conduct, fearful lest her guilt should be detected, and all the consequences of infamy and disgrace poured upon her head, by ingenious contrivances, manages to dismiss all English persons of respectability who were about her, that in secret silence she may indulge in all the excesses and wantonness of lust. Now, my lords, let us see how that fact stands. The first who attended her abroad was colonel St. Leger. What says he? "He attended her abroad, but his health compelled him to leave her at Brunswick." In 1819, he prepared to meet the Queen at Dover; and, my lords, he has paid her his dutiful respects since her return.

Now comes lady Charlotte Lindsay. She informs you, that she "quitted in consequence of previous arrangements." My lords, that fact alone would be sufficient to rebut the whole presumption on which my learned friend built, in order to show that the Queen had voluntarily parted with her. Now, my lords, what is another fact? She is asked, "had any application been made to your ladyship to join her royal highness in Germany before you took the resolution of quitting her?"—"Yes, there had."^* Now, my lords, look ye here—in 1817, when the Queen had returned from the long voyage, when, according to the statement of my learned friends, she was spending day and night in adultery, by day and by night indulging in passions to an excess that never existed, I believe, but in the prurient imaginations of the present prosecutors—then, at that very time, he sends for lady Charlotte Lindsay to come and bear her testimony of the depth to which the Queen had degraded herself. Such a witness, my lords, speaking against the Queen would, as my learned friends have said, require no comment, it would have spoken volumes; and the sending back for that witness at tin's hour, does not that speak volumes? does not that show a conviction of innocence—a consciousness that, in respect of her manners, her conduct and behaviour, the Queen of England had nothing to fear?

My lords; were it necessary to follow this subject in detail, I could point out other evidence of the same nature; but I must first advert to an attempt which has been made by my learned friends—not to invalidate the fact of the application to lady Charlotte Lindsay to return—but to find out, from the conduct of lady Charlotte, that at some time or other in her life she may have entertained an opinion derogatory to her majesty. My lords, it is worthy of the prosecutors in this case, it is consonant to all their conduct, it is agreeable to the whole that they have done from the beginning, to violate the sacred confidence which subsists between husband and wife, and bring before your lordships, if they can, the secret correspondence which that wife addressed to the husband, for the sake of blasting the character of the Queen. My lords, what do I feel? from the bottom of my soul, pity and commiseration for my learned friends, who have been compelled to obey such instructions—horror, indignation, detestation of him who so procured the means of knowledge, who worked upon the indigent husband to blast at once the credit of the wife, and damn the character of his Queen—never in the history of man, never, my lords, except in the annals of the Old Bailey, was con- ^* See p. 318 of the present Volume. duct like this brought to sight, and to exposure: and, after all, what does it come to now, tho' even the contents of this confidential communication are inquired into? That lady Charlotte Lindsay never in her life saw the smallest impropriety of conduct, but the reports communicated to her had made an impression on her mind.—That the reports were so spread—that they had made such an impression—are facts I have no interest in denying.

Now I come, my lords, to Mr. Craven. He says, that so far from being dismissed, "he staid four months longer than he originally intended." Sir William Gell says, he "left at Naples, because he had the gout." He was again in waiting, on the Queen's return from her long voyage, and again in 1820. So much for sir W. Gell, who actually did return to the service of this debauched princess, and remained with her as her joint chamberlain with Bergami for three whole months. This, my lords, is another specimen of the dismission of her English suite. My lords, it is so with Sicard. He left, it being necessary that he should come to England; "the Queen made him promise to return; that return was put off in consequence of her going the long voyage." Dr. Holland says, he "left, by his own desire to go to England—he was to return, but the Queen's pecuniary concerns becoming embarrassed, he did not." Now, my lords, so much for the Queen purposely and wilfully getting rid of her English suite! But there is another thing—a most strange anomaly in this lady's conduct; for, at the time she has secured to herself this secluded enjoyment of her passions, when she has stopped up all avenues to discovery, by some most wonderful fatality she calls to her side to be her perpetual companion, lieutenant Hownam—no Englishmen, my lords—none!—Genoa is the fatal place! There she is so entrammelled by the fascination of Bergami that all are sent away! Yet, strange to say, at that very moment does lieutenant Hownam join her, and continue at her side for three whole years!

Now, my lords, I have disposed of those two heads of accusation. There is another which I am most happy to say will occupy your lordships not two minutes. It was said, my lords, that the Queen of England not only got rid of her English suite, but that, forgetful of the decencies of life, forgetful of ordinary decorum, forgetful of her former habits, she avoided all society of rank and consequence, in the various countries she visited. My lords, from the beginning to the end, there is not one syllable of evidence to support this assertion. I will not detain your lordships by reciting the names of all the persons by whom she was visited, but I will merely give you, two or three. Dr. Holland says, the princess "was visited at Naples by all the principal nobility, English and Neapolitan;" and at Genoa "by all the English." My lords, at the very moment when the Queen was opening her hospitable door to the reception of the English, that is the period fixed upon by Demont to endeavour to excite odium against the Queen, by putting into her mouth a desire to avoid their society. I take the act against the assertion, as I would do, even if the assertion had come from a credible witness.

My lords; there is not a court in Europe or in Africa which her majesty did not go to. She is received every where with the greatest respect and attention; and, as lieutenant Hownam says, what was her conduct?—"Majesty and grace"—a tribute paid to her, in nearly the same words, by one of the right hon. colleagues of his majesty's government,^* who, to the honour of himself and to the honour of human nature, disclaims all part in this prosecution. My lords, I have said at all the courts, I humbly beg your lordships pardon. There is one exception, and that exception was at the court of Vienna. Why, my lords, how difficult it is to solve the problem! My lords, at that court was my lord Stewart ambassador—the brother of my lord Castlereagh, one of the present prosecutors. And what was he besides? the foster father of Majoochi, the wholesale dealer in perjury—him it was that he nurtured in his palace, though he refused that countenance to his sovereign. Here is a reason for the exception—a reason that should remain in your lordships' minds, so long as justice and truth prevail.

Now, my lords, there is one other circumstance. "How can you," says the attorney-general, "account for the rapid promotion of this obscure individual? Here see we a courier mounting first to page, then to equerry, and seven or eight months elapse when he becomes the chamberlain of the Queen." My lords, let us see ^* Mr. Canning. See Vol. 1, p. 962. whether this too is not capable of being accounted for. What says the evidence as to the original engagement of this individual? Mr. Craven says, "the marquis of Ghisiliari, the chamberlain of the emperor, recommended him, stating, that he had known his family, and that he could recommend him strongly." Sir William Gell says, that "his family had fallen into distress; that the marquis Ghisiliari said, that he was honorable, honest, and trust-worthy." General Teuillé tells you, that "he had been in the confidence of general Pino as his confidential courier—his conduct was that of an inferior officer who had never done any thing to reproach himself with; in short, the conduct of a good soldier." He says, "he was a person who had general Pino's whole confidence," and that "he was not looked upon as a servant or a domestic." My lords, no sooner has he reached Naples than he becomes a page. My lords, if ever truth were elucidated by small circumstances all tending to one end and yet coming from the witnesses so accidentally that none of the counsel or any individual could have foretold what would be said, it is so here. Look at the following circumstance, how he came to act as page. "The marquis Ghisiliari requested that he might remain a servant out of livery when the Queen stopped any where." There, my lords, is the history of his first promotion; and accordingly, says Mr. Craven, "Pergami never wore his courier's dress after coming to Naples"—not that he did not wear it upon subsequent journies, but that he never wore it while they were resident at Naples.

My lords; he is made equerry some time subsequent. Now listen to sir William Gell: "The marquis Ghisliari said, he was above the office he was going to enter, if he behaved well, he hoped he would be gradually advanced." My lords, it is not until the experience of five months had proved his fitness for a superior situation, that her majesty advanced him to the office of equerry, at a time her majesty had, by necessary engagements in England, been deprived of the service of her confidential servant Sicard. Now, my lords, what were the other circumstances which impelled her majesty, I may say compelled her majesty, to resort to such an appointment? My lords, she had left this country under circumstances of disfavour with the court—he whom I lament to call her never-wearied pro- secutor, held the reins of power—to attend to her, to be in her favor, was to be in his disgrace—to have her countenance was to forfeit all hope of promotion here. Which, my lords, of those individuals of rank in this country would, in common justice to their children, growing into life, have suffered them to enter a service which barred during the existence of the king, all hopes of promotion and honour? No, my lords—and with respect to Sicard, was such an individual, advanced in life, competent to discharge the duties the Queen required, when it is recollected that, from the hour she left England, or at least from the day she reached Naples, she was, as Mr. Craven has told you beset with spies. At Genoa assailed in the night—I will not say by whom—her personal safety at risk—suffering under apprehensions which even her magnanimous spirit condescended to notice—under apprehensions which she has stated to lieutenant Hownam—she required a person to protect her who had knowledge of the world, power of mind and power of body—and I think, my lords, that her selection of Bergami, under such circumstances, cannot be said to draw with it an inference of guilt, when you see how she had conducted herself before, how he has conducted himself since he has been in the service—with what propriety and respect hetreated her down to the year 1820.

My lords; we have been told, that he was omnipotent in his control over her majesty. My lords, I deny that even the circumstances adverted to, in any manner whatsoever establish the fact. It is said, his brother was advanced. My lords, it is not till after the long voyage, until he too had given some experience of his deserts—it is not till then, that lieutenant Hownam states, he was raised to the rank of equerry: nor was it till the expiration of three years that the mother of this person was received as an inmate of her royal highness in her retirement at Pesaro. Now, my lords, I say this—that if the Queen had been under the influence of a guilty passion, the effects of that passion would have showed itself when that passion was at its height; Bergami would have commanded her majesty as a slave at his feet; from the very hour that once she had descended to court his embraces he would have had no mercy—for favourites, my lords, at court, seldom have much mercy, seldom much consideration, but to protect their own interests at the expense of the rest of the world. So, would it have been with him. The hour which proved her guilt would have been the signal for her thraldom. She would, from that hour, have known no will but his—no pleasure but his commands—no. duty but that which he pointed out to her. Could she, my lords, think you, have, abandoned the delights and joys of an Italian climate, to have gone upon adventures such as few have the courage to encounter, when she might have remained—when she would have been compelled by that individual to have remained at home, that she might satiate her lust, and he might satiate his rapacity.

My lords; if we are to take human nature for our guide—if the acts of individuals are to be judged of by their reason and their object—conduct so inconsistent with guilt I believe never was exhibited. Your lordships must take it as a whole. You must not select this or that trifling occurrence, and say, at a lapse of six years, "this cannot be explained, therefore I will affix upon it the stain of guilt." Who, I ask your lordships, who in this House is so spotless, whose life so free, not only from guilt but even from the possibility of suspicion, that he would have the courage to say, "Go back six years—every the most trifling iota of my conduct shall at the very first blush and glance prove its own incorruptible purity." My lords, he who would dare say that, has, I will venture to say, less honesty, less candor, or less knowledge, than falls to the general lot of human kind.

Your lordships cannot fail to recollect, that, armed with these assertions, so little substantiated in proof, my learned friends proceeded to open the first grand scene of this melancholy tragedy. "Now" said my learned friend the attorney-general, in all the confidence of false information, in all the reliance upon circumstances which have since so lamentably failed him—"Now I will lead you to the bridal bed—Now I will show you the consummation, by proofs and evidence that he who ventures to deny his belief shall be taken for a dolt for ever." Now we come to the scene, and I venture to say that, refuted and disproved as these charges are in other parts, beyond all possibility of doubt, the evidence upon the present occasion is as strong and satisfactory as even that relating to the Sinigaglia journey, or to the Trieste expedi- tion. My lords, in the first place, I shall shortly advert to one or two points. The adultery is laid at Naples on the 9th of November, the second night after the Queen's arrival there—Now, my lords, mark this—the Queen arrives on the evening of the 8th—she goes to a concert in the evening of the 9th—she goes to the Opera on the evening of the 10th. The story of the adultery at Naples depends solely upon the evidence of Demont; and there is this inconsistency in her tale—for she fixes the adultery to have taken place on the second night, and yet she says, it was the night when the Queen told her she was going to the Opera. Now, my lords, I am willing to take the case either way, and to show, that whether the scene be laid on the night of the 9th or on the night of the 10th, there is ample proof to show that the whole is falsehood.

Now, my lords, first we have an account from Demont, or rather an assertion from my learned friend, that the night before the Queen arrived at Naples, William Austin, for the first time was separated from the room of her royal highness. Now mark, my lords, the fact—one witness only states this, that generally Austin slept there before her arrival at Naples. But, my lords, how do we stand now? We have produced two witnesses—one Wm. Carrington, who states, that prior to the arrival at Naples he actually had slept in another room and he tells you, that he made his bed. We have farther the evidence of Mr. Craven, who states, that previous to that time he had advised the Queen that Austin should not sleep in her room because he was too old. Then he states the facts; and then comes Sicard, who says, that Austin had actually slept in the Queen's room for the first week or so. Now, if the evidence of Sicard be true, down is gone the superstructure. For my learned friends will hardly attempt to maintain, that the adultery took place in Austin's actual presence. But take it, that Sicard has made a mistake, and that Austin was displaced at the time—then, my lords, I have the evidence of Mr. Craven, that he advised the displacing of Austin prior to the arrival at Naples, and of Carrington, that that advice was actually carried into effect. So that that being the state of the case, as far as any suspicion would attach as to William Austin, I say, is not my case perfectly clear, and not even contradicted by Demont, who only says that he generally slept in the Queen's room? But before I leave this, I must make this observation—that though the whole House is at the Queen's disposal—that though, according to the representation of my learned friends, the Queen is about on that day to celebrate her hymeneal rites, she actually places this boy of 13 years of age in a room close to her, with a door of communication opening into it, he having been in the habit and custom, from his youth up to that night, according to their statement, of entering the Queen's room. What do your lordships think of that, as a method of precaution to avoid detection? he is placed in the most convenient situation to detect it. So much, my lords, for William Austin!

The next circumstance of suspicion is, that the Queen returns home early in the evening. Now, my lords, you may take the case which way you please—if that was the night, the 10th of November, she does not come home till 1 o'clock in the morning, when she is attended to her room by sir William Gell—If it is the concert night, the 9th of November, Mr. Craven was in attendance, and tells your lordships that they left about half-past 11. And so we dispose of the precipitation with which this lady of eight and forty goes to throw herself into the arms of her lover!—Now, my lords, there is another circumstance—when she comes home, she goes towards the cabinet, according to Demont's account. My lords, I want to know what secret there is in this—the cabinet was her break fast room, and near to the cabinet was a water closet, according to the account of Sicard. She returns immediately—(for that is the very evidence of Demont)—she returns immediately, and then, my lords, Demont is dismissed. Now it has been said, that Bergami's room was placed at the end of the corridor, on purpose to facilitate this intercourse. I dismiss that, because it has been commented upon so much at length already, by simply stating, that he was there placed, according to the evidence of Sicard, without the knowledge or participation of the Queen, and for the express purpose of guarding that part of the house, there being a glass door.

My lords; here ends the direct testimony of Mademoiselle Demont; but there is other testimony, which, when carefully viewed, establishes in this part, as in the rest, the impossibility of sup- porting, for a series of years, a tale of falsehood. My lords, Demont tells you at p. 250,^* that "the large bed had no sheets; that the next morning the Queen rose about eleven, her usual time"—another contradiction to my learned friends. Now mark, my lords, the fact—M no one had slept in the small bed"—she observed, "the large bed had been occupied"—she "cannot more particularly speak of the state of it"—for ray learned friend, the solicitor-general, in examining his witnesses, has no mercy upon them; if they will not go by kindness, he gives them the whip and the spur, and he will bring out, if it is possible, the contents of any deposition they may have made of any time, before any tribunal, however created. So, my lords, this witness is well spurred and whipped till she comes to her full career, and says, "I made no observation on the small bed after the second night."—Now, my lords, here goes again—"the second night the greater bed had the appearance of more than one person having slept in it." At 6rst this witness can only tell you, that the large bed had been occupied; she cannot more particularly speak of the state of it: but mark how her memory grows—"it had the appearance of being occupied by more than one person"—the simple addition of another person inside this bed. Now, my lords, is that all; but, as your lordships know, three days afterwards we have the addition, to crown the whole, of stains upon the coverlet. Now, my lords, let us examine this—if Bergami came to the Queen that night, the small bed not being occupied, she occupied the great bed, or I do not know where she slept at all. Why, it had no sheets, according to the evidence of this witness. No sheets, my lords! Well! but such is the power of passion, that for one night, though in the month of November, though the lady is six and forty years of age, still she might undergo all the severity of sleeping outside the counterpane. But, my lords, what becomes of her afterwards? where does she sleep all the other four months? Now, I pray your lordships to observe this evidence—" Had the great bed the appearance of more than one person having slept in it on subsequent nights?" "I have always seen the same thing." What, my lords, the large bed occupied by two persons without sheets for four whole ^* See Vol. 2, p. 1114. months! Gracious God! what an impossibility! for four whole months! No, but mark me, my lords, I am free to say this pinches me—I am here driven tight. What was the state of the case? Here was a week of this time that Bergami, in consequence of an accident, was unable to quit his bed, having been kicked by a horse; and yet the great bed retains the appearance of two persons having slept in it! Here is double adultery—with whom? Oh, my lords, look ye how truth will wash itself clear—how real metal will glow in its native brightness the more it is hammered and the more it is tried in the fire! Is this consistent with common truth or possibility? This lady of observation, who forgets not to examine the large bed, and to produce from it the evidence of guilt for four whole months together, tells you, "she observed the smaller bed the second night, and never observed it afterwards," though she made it up. O wonderful memory! memory which retains, in all its native strength, the evidence of guilt; which, for the evidence of innocence it leaves not a trace behind! Well might my learned friends, seeing the strength, the consistency, the credibility of this testimony—well might they say, "Here we place our sole reliance—here we rest—you call not Annette Priesing, who made the beds for the first two months." My lords, by the evidence of Demont herself, she is not the bed-maker, but Annette Priesing is. Now, by the evidence of Restelli, it appearst, hat she, in company with others, is enjoying the advantages of English air; but she is not called. Her testimony, if it could have established the facts, would have been invaluable; for she it was whose business it was to attend to the bed of her majesty. She is here; but my learned friends, in the exercise of a wise and prudent discretion, say, "No; though it is a criminal case—though we are ready and willing to take to ourselves all the credit of not being parties—we will keep her from the party accused, locked up in the purlieus of Cotton-garden; but we dare not produce her ourselves—we will rest upon the primâ facie evidence of that witness, who under all the circumstances, is ready to support any charge, or any averment." My lords, I leave the second night at Naples—I leave the solemnization of these unholy rites—to those priests who have introduced them to your lordships. I leave them, my lords, if they can, now to offer another sacrifice—the sacrifice of the character and honour of the Queen, upon testimony which no rational man can credit for an instant. My lords; one word only—for almost one word is wasted upon such evidence as that of Majoochi; but, my lords, he, not to be behind hand with his partner in the gainful trade of false swearing, has his nice little stock of adultery to produce in the cabinet at Naples. Now, my lords, two observations only; we are told this was a secret passage—that for the sake of concealment her majesty would go through this corridor, through Majoochi's room, and not venture by the larger passage. My lords, suppose I were for a moment to grant the truth of that averment—suppose I were to say, that the Queen, acting upon rational motives, was justified in seeking her way through this narrow and secret passage—my lords, that would lead us to this; that following her unholy desires, she once entered the room where Majoochi was asleep—that there having discovered him,—for he pins her down to that by his own assertion,—having gone into the room of Bergami, she thence had the good fortune to escape undetected. Now, my lords, what does she do to avoid the possible chance of meeting any person in the other passage at the dead of night? She ventures the absolute certainty of encountering Majoochi! My lords, the first time she went she might have been in ignorance that Majoochi slept there—she might have been taken by surprise—she might have entered the room—she might have been confused—she might have appeared to have retired—she might have refrained for the moment from proceeding; but, the second time she knew to a certainty there was a light in the room, and a man upon the watch. And yet, my lords, we are to be told, that any person in her senses would do—what, my lords? go that way, not from necessity, but as a matter of preference, when there was another communication into Bergami's room without going through that cabinet. If there had been no other passage into that room, it might have been said, that the Queen was so carried away by her fatal passion, that in despite of her character and her fame, she boldly ran all danger; but when there was another passage, not even an act of parliament can make, us believe that she would do that which was inconsistent with the common prudence of a reasonable being.

My lords; one word only as to the ball which her majesty gave to Murat. Your lordships cannot forget the charge opened by my learned friend, of the indecent dress in which her majesty appeared on this occasion—how every one must have been shocked with it, and how, when she put on this indecent dress, she sought the assistance of Bergami in preference to that of her waiting maids. My lords, it is to the evidence alone I wish to call your attention; comment it needs none. The evidence of Demont is, that she appeared in an indecent dress, with the arms and the breasts bare; and if this alone remained, the evidence of Demont might have been struck out of your lordships Minutes. My lords, in this state she is represented to have appeared at a public masquerade, and so to have disgraced and degraded the country to which she belonged. Now, if there had been one shadow of truth in the assertion—if it had been capable of being sustained by any testimony whatever—was there ever such an opportunity for my learned friends (if those who instructed them would but once have allowed them to get beyond the limits of discarded servants and chambermaids) to have produced some of those respectable individuals who were present at the ball upon that occasion, to have made as clear as the sun in its meridian splendor, that disgrace and degradation of which my learned friends have complained. Would any man believe, that a charge so capable of proof, if true—so easily sustainable—should have been left upon the single unaided, unassisted testimony, of a discarded chambermaid? But, my lords, how stands it in fact, as well as in deficiency of proof? My lord Landaff was there; he did not observe that the dress of the princess was an indecent dress. Was that a circumstance to pass by without observation? Was not the eye of those upon her who were ready to detect the smallest failing—would they have been blinded to this breach of decorum publicly exhibited? Yet my lord Landaff knows not of it. Luckily, we stop not here. Mr. Craven says, there was nothing in the slightest degree indecent or improper—the dress was of white drapery, and came up very high. "If grossly indecent or immodest," he says, "I must have observed it." Sir William Gell states, that the Queen had an under-dress. My lords, I will not trouble you further upon this discomfited accusation, save to say, that, fortunately, even the remnant of a charge which was tacked upon this, is also disproved. There was a charge that Bergami was employed to assist the Queen in dressing and undressing upon this occasion; nay, it was stated, that her royal highness changed all her clothes during the time that he was in the room. Now, your lordships find, that so far from that being the case, from the beginning to the end, she had a dress underneath; and sir W. Gell says, in page 562,^* "I believe the Queen had a very great number of attendants when she changed her dress; the door was opened and shut perpetually, and every body was in and out of her room." And yet Demont has the courage to tell your lordships that for I three quarters of an hour upon such an occasion as this, when she herself was the I hostess, she was locked up in the chamber with her paramour. My lords, I think no man who hears me can entertain the smallest doubt, that not one shadow of truth remains in this charge.

My lords; what ought I to say of another—opened with the same boldness, met with the same disproof—I mean the charge, that the Queen, in the most indecent dress, went to the masquerade at the theatre San Carlos? Mr. Attorney General, in pursuance of his instructions, was pleased to state, that the dress was most indecent, and that the indignation of the assembly compelled the Queen to a speedy retreat. My lords, would not such a transaction have been known—would it not have been capable of proof before your lordships? But how turns it out It turns out, even upon the testimony of Demont, that "the Queen had an ugly red dress on, and that she was surrounded by masks." And here again, Dr. Holland tells your lordships, that he was there, "but he was not aware of the Queen being there till the next morning." Then, my lords, I say, I am justified in taking this view of the subject—I am justified in saying, that not one shadow of charge remains against the Queen during her residence at Naples—that she leaves that city pure, unspotted, and untainted.

Then I pursue her majesty through the charges that follow, with the advantage of feeling confident, that your lordships will do me the justice not to couple with future charges refuted accu- ^* See p. 363 of the present Volume. sations, but to consider each and every one that follows, until I have disproved what is to come; for they have been all free from all impression save that of the truth. But, my lords, am I to stop here in my conclusion? I think I am entitled to say to your lordships, that here is the ground-work of the proof here is the foundation of that edifice of imputed guilt, which has since been raised. When I look at the evidence of Demont and Majoochi—when I examine it in all its parts, and see the consummate art and artifice with which it has been connected and arranged—when I see the manner in which it has been made, in the original deposition at least, not capable of being confronted by the testimony of others, and only by cross-examination by possibility brought into that shape, why, my lords, I am inclined to say this—that here was the foundation of the conspiracy; that here the talents of mademoiselle Demont had been successfully exerted, in order to pave the way to the introduction of other charges and other circumstances, which, without the colouring to be drawn from the Naples case, falls to the ground in native nothingness. I say, that my learned friends have done rightly in having laboured the Naples case; they tried it in every shape and in every way—they spared it not? Why, my lords, did they spare it not? "Let me but poison the source," says my learned friend, "and the taint will follow down the stream. Let me but create an impression that there was an undue attachment at Naples, and I will convert, all the circumstances hereafter, however innocent, however natural, however praiseworthy—I will colour them with the same complexion, I will bestow upon them the same taint of guilt." My lords, I humbly implore your lordships, for the sake of truth and justice, to cast away from your minds, to eradicate from your hearts, every trace of that evidence which I confidently assert I have disproved in the face of this august assembly, and to go with me, as you are bound to go with me, with pure and unbiassed minds to the consideration and effect of the future circumstances which it is my duty to discuss—to discuss them with relation to every thing belonging to them; but not to import into the consideration of the case, impressions, arguments, or reasons, which have no connexion in nature, in fact, or in justice.

The Earl of Liverpool.

—Would Dr. Lushington wish for an opportunity of refreshment.

Dr. Lushington.

—A little time, if your lordships please.

[After a short time, Dr. Lushington proceeded as follows:

My lords; I left my argument at that part of the case which closed with the history of Naples; and I have the pleasure of informing your lordships, that I think there are several branches of this case, which, in the strict discharge of my duty, I am fully justified in passing over without a single observation. I think so, my lords, first, because nothing that I can say would add to the admirable arguments of my learned leader; and, secondly, because I have the sincerest conviction that those points are established beyond the possibility of human doubt. My lords, the circumstances to which I refer, are the circumstances at Seharnitz, at Sinigaglia, and at Trieste—either the subject is entirely exhausted, or, I think, I may venture to say upon all three that, the truth has been satisfactorily elucidated.

My lords; leaving Naples in the month of March 1815, your lordships will find an extraordinary deficiency of proof up to a period of not less than six or seven months; because, my lords, I pass over, as unworthy of notice, the breakfasting at Genoa as established by the evidence of Majoochi, and other petty circumstances which stand upon the same redoubtable testimony. And now, my lords, I come to the long voyage. And here it is right, in the first instance, that I should point out to your lordships one or two contradictions of the testimony already adduced, which, if the produce the effect upon your lordships minds, which I apprehend they must produce, naturally discredit the witnesses to whatever other facts they may hereafter speak. My lords, here an observation occurs to me which I should have held myself guilty to a court of justice—were I to presume to offer it to a court of justice—(where every individual was in the habit of weighing and considering testimony, and accurately knowing all the principles by which our judicial proceedings are governed)—if I should presume to offer the observation I now make—I should be laying down ordinary and common truths to persons infinitely more conversant with them than myself. I allude to this—if: you once find in the testimony of a witness, that he has wilfully swerved from: the truth, that he has in any one particular wickedly, and, in the language of our law, "of malice aforethought" deposed against his knowledge of the truth—if once you find that, your lordships are bound in justice, according to all the principles of common sense, according to every principle that ought to govern the human mind, to reject the whole of his testimony, from the beginning to the end. And why, my lords? Will any man for a moment maintain the position, that if Majoochi has wilfully perjured himself in one place—that if he has manifested that disregard to truth and to his oath in one instance, there is ground for believing that he has discovered upon a subsequent occasion, or was influenced upon the preceding occasion, by that reverence for the God whom he calls to witness, and that respect for his own character which are the only safe-guards for the veracity of witnesses. Why, in the name of common sense, is it, my lords, that a conviction for perjury disqualifies a witness, because he as once sworn falsely? And where is the distinction between a conviction of perjury proved by a copy of the record brought into court, and the conviction of perjury proved before your lordships upon the present occasion, past all human possibility of doubt? My lords, Majoochi would, according to our law, be rendered utterly incompetent—his evidence would not be even receivable, if he had once been convicted of the crime of false swearing—it would not be competent evidence. Why, my lords, if instead of the record of a court of justice, I produce to you proof of which no man can doubt, I ask your lordships whether in common equity, whether in common sense, the conclusion does not follow, that, as in the one instance upon the production of the record, you would reject his testimony altogether, so in the other instance, on the conviction in I your own minds from irrefragable proof, you would erase from your consideration every trace, every impression, which that evidence may accidentally have made before the perjury was brought to light and to conviction? It is upon the same principle I implore your lordships to consider the testimony of Majoochi, of Demont, of Sacchi and of Restelli. My lords, it never was given to man to detect perjury in all its ramifications, and again I say, for the lost time, once detected it roust and ought to avail if there be justice in England.

Now, my lords, one or two instances I will point out to your lordships, and pass off from them with rapidity. My lords, the Queen has embarked on board the polacre, and she visits the Seven Sleepers at Ephesus—Majoochi says, that "Pergami and the queen dined alone in a vestibule, surrounded by a wall" There, my lords, in silence and security the eloquence of my learned friend has displayed them enjoying their guilty intercourse in all the luxuries of an eastern climate. Now, hear the truth. Lieutenant Hownam says, that upon that occasion "all her suite slept around her—they all dined together in the portico of an old mosque." And, my lords, instead of this indulgence of a criminal passion—instead of this guilty pleasure—he points it out as one of the instances of the difficulties this illustrious lady had to cope with, and the hardships she had to endure when he said, "she slept under a shed of boughs amongst Jews, Turks, mules, and horses." Ay, my lords, and worse still! Around her were those who, so long as justice shall prevail, will rank below the blaspheming Jew, or the corrupting Mahometan, those who come,—having subsisted upon her bounty, been supported by her hand, favoured by her kindness—to perjure and forswear themselves for her destruction. She had about her Dement and Majoochi—what worse in the created world could woman have!

Now, my lords, I come to Tunis. There Majoochi says (and this is a little specimen of his talent for misrepresentation) "the princess and Pergami's rooms were at a little distance. The rest of the suite slept in another part." Hear Mr. Hownam's account. "Pergami's bed-room was not near her royal highness—there were three or four rooms to pass, and a flight of stairs." Now, my lords, when Demont, in p. 287, gives the same history, as Majoochi, when I find, in an instance like this, so glaring a departure from truth, so flagrant a representation of a falsehood, it not only discredits the witnesses who have sworn it in this instance, but in every other particular. It would be a waste of your lordships time—it would not be a discharge of my duty, but a neglect of the decorum due to you—if I were to trace these two witnesses through all their similar misrepresenta- tions; but this I do say, that almost in every instance the same may be proved^* If your lordships want another, I have one in my recollection. In the case of the Barona Boromeo, Majoochi swears there was a secret stair-case, which led into a small apartment. Now here, my lords, that appellation, that, epithet is misapplied—the epithet secresy naturally conveying the idea of guilt; and what was the fact? that so far from being a secret stair-case, it was the stair-case that led to the room of Mr. Hownam, a stair-case which was frequented by servants who went that way.

My lords; one word only as to the tent on land—Your lordships will find, from the evidence of Mr. Hownam, that he "never saw any bed-clothes upon the sofa, and that the Queen was not undressed—that she had been greatly fatigued so as frequently to fall from her horse." Majoochi says, "he slept in the circle between the two tents twice; that he heard two voices speak by whispering, but could not make out whether they were men's or women's voices." Voices, my lords! Whether individuals who have once advanced so deep in the paths of perjury, sometimes, as they proceed, feel upon them the qualms of conscience, as if stopping short they would do away the effects of their former faults, it is not for me to say. It is manifest what was the truth upon that occasion—he failed those who had hoped to receive from his testimony the asseveration of the guilt of the Queen. Upon that occasion he, together with Carlini, slept in what Mr. Hownam calls the gallery between the two tents. Whether Bergami was there or not I know not—but there they were in the gallery between. And if there be any man alive who, taking all those circumstances into consideration—the extreme fatigue the Queen had suffered—the sultry climate she was enduring—actually falling from her horse—resting by day, because it was impossible to travel by day—if there be any man who supposes, that during the few short hours which were set apart for the purpose of rest and refreshment, she could have had adultery in her mind, or could have perpetrated it in fact, I pity his understanding, and it would be absolute waste of time were I to attempt to bring any such individual to a rational conclusion upon the subject.

Now, my lords, I come to a point which forms, if one may judge from the report of in- dividuals abroad, the last stay, the last cable of a falling cause—I come to that which now, in common parlance, for the edification of the rising generation, for the improvement of public morals, is called the adultery under the tent on ship-board—and I come fearless to the task; feeling, as I do, all the confidence which the coolest consideration can give me, that I shall demonstrate to your lordships, that guilt cannot be taken to be proved here. Let not your lordships forget, that I am entitled to say, the Queen of England enters this polacre unstained, unspotted, uncontaminated, free from the breath of suspicion. Then, my lords, let us look at the circumstances. When the Queen first enters the polacre, Bergami is sleeping not in the dining cabin. The stern of the ship is divided into a cabin for herself and a cabin for the countess Oldi, with a door of communication between the two—then comes the dining-cabin; and when they first embarked at Messina, or Augusta, I Bergami slept on the outside.

Now, your lordships must remember the opening of my learned friend—"Soon," says he, "this arrangement thus made was altered by her royal highness, for the purpose of facilitating their adulterous intercourse." Now, my lords, as it is my duty to proceed step by step, your lordships must excuse my showing that there was a good and sufficient reason for that change? Both captain Flinn and captain Hownam distinctly state, that this change of apartments took place in consequence of a doctor coming on board at Tunis, and accordingly Bergami was moved—that not being the only change, for there was a change or two besides. He was changed into the dining-cabin, where he had his cot erected, or whatever species of bed lie might have slept upon, on the right-hand side. So, my lords, we got rid of all suspicion arising from that circumstance. Then, my lords, he proceeds during the whole of what is called the outward voyage until the vessel reaches St. Jean d'Acre, sleeping on the bed within the cabin; and upon the return from that voyage it is, that the Queen changes her place of sleeping, and has a couch erected under the awning of the ship.

Now, my lords, I propose to consider this case thus—the reason for the change—the facts—and the justification. As to the reason for the change, we have proved, beyond all possibility of doubt, that it was the annoyance which arose from there being aboard the vessel seven horses, two asses, and the stench and the heat which were occasioned by those animals. Well, my lords, but it is said, that on the passage homeward, for five or six weeks, under the same tent slept Bergami. My lords, whether he slept there once, twice, or always, I care not—extorted as the evidence has been from lieut. Hownam. I shall be astonished, however, if my learned friends in the presence of your lordships, should venture to say, that the belief of a witness, arising partly from hearsay, can be the grounds of conviction in a criminal case. I believe if that were so, it would be the first instance since English jurisprudence has taken its shape and form, that ever a conviction was so allowed or suffered by an English judge—perhaps I may say, dating my assertion from the time of James the second. But, my lords, think not that I propose to defend the Queen by pressing my learned friends on this point—by saying, "Here is a deficiency of evidence; I pin you to your point; and though all your lordships minds may be satisfied of the fact, I will extort a verdict from your lordships, a verdict of not guilty, having in your own minds a conviction of guilt. My lords, I should be justified in doing that; but, in the name of my royal mistress, I disclaim and abandon the right. I will not, my lords—I could not—so defend her. I say, in my conscience, and in my honour, I do not believe I could use such an argument in justification of her—I should think it a happiness and a blessing, even that guilty were pronounced at once, rather than for her to go forth from this bar, acquitted in name, but debased, dishonoured, and disregarded, in the feelings of all who are upright and honourable—of all whose opinions are worth having—of all whose character renders their estimation valuable. No, my lords, I say this—I say, granted that Bergami slept under the tent—I will acknowledge it, and wilt justify it too.

Now, let us take all the circumstances. My lords, I have shown a good, a sufficient reason for the Queen sleeping upon deck. Now, first, what was it the Queen slept in? It is a misnomer to call it a tent—it was the awning of the ship, extending nearly over the whole breadth of the ship; not formed and fashioned with care and pains to exclude all the breath of the winds of heaven—nor did the season of the year, even if the form and fashion of the awning had allowed it, justify or render possible such an obstruction of the current of life. My lords, necessity and nature prove that to have been impossible. Then, my lords, again I have the evidence of Mr. Hownam, who states, that this tent could be easily opened by night. I should first state by-the-by I have not only the possibility of its being opened by night, but I have the fact of lieut. Flinn opening it repeatedly, and how? by putting on one side those pieces of canvas that formed it. Lieut. Hownam is asked in p. 712, "Then is the mode by which a person on the outside, who wanted to go in, would do so, simply that of drawing back a part of the tent?" to I which he answers, "I should think so."^*

Well, my lords, what is the other circumstance? There are two persons at the helm. For that fact I refer to the evidence of Paturzo. He says, that he was near to the helm, together with the person at the helm, and that there were never less than ten men on deck during the night in the same place. Now, my lords, the hatchway was open—there was no companion—the hatches were not under the awning—there was not only a place open for persons to come up, but the hatches not being under the awning, there was no possibility of excluding persons from coming up.

My lords; in addition to that, here are Bergami dressed, and the Queen dressed; I for such is the result of the evidence—it being stated by Gargiulo, that he always saw Bergami come out dressed—and by Hownam, that he believes the Queen never undressed at all. Gargiulo says, "Pergami was always entirely dressed;" Demont says, that "she did not assist in undressing the Queen;" and afterwards she says, "she does not remember to I have seen the hatchway closed." Gargiulo says, he remembers the hatchway being closed; but how and why, I am unable to explain. The evidence of lieut. Hownam and Flinn, and even of Demont is, that this hatchway was never closed at all.

My lords; it is said there was no light in the tent. Why not? Two witnesses tell you that there used to be light under that tent, until such a period of danger from the pirates, that they advised the Queen that no light should be burnt there

^* See p. 503 of the present Volume. any longer. For that fact I refer your lordships to the evidence of lieut. Flinn, which is confirmed by lieut. Hownam.

Then, my lords, what is said as to the hearing any thing in this tent during the night? Majoochi, of ever-memorable recollection, comes forth to aid my learned friends on this their last pinch, and says, "I was placed in the dining-cabin below, and there I heard"—what?—"the creaking of a bench." My lords, the other circumstances necessarily follow—any man who once has heard the creaking of a bench, has a perfect right to go into a court of justice, and either swear or conclude that two persons were on the bench committing adultery!—that is just the inference my learned friends desire you to draw upon the present occasion. But, my lords, could Majoochi hear? Could the two steersmen hear? I have the evidence of Paturzo, that he believes Majoochi could hear below.—I have the evidence of Majoochi that he did hear below. I have two steersmen close to the tent—I have ten sailors near the tent—and captain Flinn within four feet of the tent—has any of those, my lords, presumed to say they heard any noise indicating the commission of adultery? When we are trying a case of this importance, is a man to be permitted to draw a conclusion that guilt is perpetrated in a place like this. If the facts to which he speaks are true, I say he may—should almost say, it is impossible to be avoided. But, my lords, we fortunately have another circumstance—this chosen Elysium of the Queen, was one that she would as soon be without; for when lieut. Hownam tells her, that he attributes the slowness of the sailing of the vessel to the tent, she says, "I would as soon sleep without it." Surely, my lords, my learned friends do not mean to say that when the awning was taken away, the Queen would have remained on deck and indulged her licentious desires without that slight protection? But your lordships will find, in p. 708, that is the declaration of the Queen.^*

Now, my lords, let us for one instant consider,—supposing the Queen had been bent on carrying on this adulterous intercourse, whether it was consistent with any rules of ordinary reason to presume, that the adultery was committed under the tent. My lords, mark this—she was re- ^* See p. 501 of the present Volume. maining in her own cabin and Bergami sleeping in the dining-room, with every facility of carrying on that intercourse without detection on the whole of the voyage outwards. Now, my lords, if she was under the influence of this passion, which if it existed, degraded her to the rank of a common prostitute, I ask your lordships whether she would have exchanged the gratifications of a luxurious bed in the cabin, with almost safety from detection, for the chance-caught enjoyments on a couch without bed clothes-she and her paramour being both dressed? My lords, is it consistent with human reason, that having in your possession the means of the ample gratification of your passions, you should pursue another course, and, strewing difficulty in your own way, diminish the opportunity of enjoyment, and incur the danger of detection? One such blast as drove the Queen from her tent off the coast of Caramania would have ripped the awning to shivers, and might have exposed her even in the very act of indecency to the eyes of the whole crew on deck—one such mistake as lieut. Hownam made when he ran up the ladder at night, might have led to a similar disclosure—Those are the risks which she is supposed thus voluntarily to have encountered.

But, my lords, let us see a little more how this stands. Was there no reason, no justification, for the attendance of Bergami? Know we not, my lords, that a crew of 22 Italians, up to that very hour unknown to her majesty, were not the persons precisely to be trusted. Or, if it is granted that their fidelity was above suspicion, I ask you, whether her majesty was not entitled to protection from even the accidental insult of a drunken sailor? Good God! my lords, shall we impute guilt where safety is sought? Shall we impute disgrace where protection is alone required? Nay, my lords, is that all? We have the evidence of lieut. Hownam, that a woman could not have performed the duties of this situation. He says, that "when there was the least roll of the sea, female attendance was impossible." Was the Queen to remain under the awning alone, or was she to go back to endure all the nausea of this stench, noise, and heat? No, my lords. But it has been said, it is not possible that men and women shall so associate together, and there be no guilt. My lords, if the Queen having ample conveniences and no necessity, ample oppor- tunity for separation, and no requisition for protection, no call for the services of I this individual, had taken him as a companion beneath the tent, it would have been cause of suspicion: but, even then, it would not have been cause of a judicial judgment; and the judge who could upon such facts pronounce a verdict of guilty, I say boldly would commit a judicial murder.

Now, my lords, go we farther.—We are tracing, with pain and difficulty, the occurrences of five years back, collecting all the little circumstances which we think may give a colour and complexion to the transaction—we have before us a witness who was present upon the occasion, whose veracity I think no honest man can doubt. My learned friends have, by the torture of cross-examination, obtained from him an admission of his belief that Bergami was under the tent; and, having thus obtained from him the admission, what are your lordships called upon to do? Why, my lords, to draw a conclusion of guilt from those very circumstances which never conveyed to his mind the slightest impression of criminality. Nay, my lords, I do in conscience believe I understate my case—I say from the same circumstances it is not so—no man can now say what were all the circumstances that occurred on that day—the memory of man is fleeting—there are little incidents that escape the attention of the most retentive memory, and yet which, if they were now presented to our sight, would wash away all suspicion of guilt, and leave the party who was before under a cloud of suspicion, guiltless and freed from doubt. Now, my lords, let me just state to your lordships the evidence of lieut. Hownam. He says, there was no mystery or concealment at any time on the journey. Speaking of the tent, he uses these memorable words: "I do not conceive there was any impropriety in the thing, because I must have felt it, and J did not feel it." My lords, shall I then be told that any judge on earth, having regard to his own conscience, judging of facts which have taken place five years back, which facts under the eye of the very witness (and that an incorruptible witness created no suspicion, shall say, "You have deceived and beguiled yourself; you had before your eyes all you have told us, and all that you have forgotten to tell us and that existed, which afforded the means of forming a correct opinion: We have not: we have roost probably but a partial relation of the facts; but we will pronounce a verdict of guilty where you have pronounced the sentence of innocence." My lords, I should be inexcusable if I trespassed on your time further upon this. I should think that even her majesty's bitterest accusers will no longer cling to the frail hope of fixing imputation and stain by this occurrence—I should think that, while admiring the dauntless courage and firmness with which her majesty encountered all difficulties, even where bodily sufferings were to be endured, they would not have the malignity to pervert those hardships and sufferings into the abomination of carnal concupiscence.

My lords; I say not a word of the bath—for this plain reason—it is unnecessary to do more than refer to the passage, and leave it to your lordships consideration. Mr. Hownam says, that he does not think it possible the bath-tub could go into the Queen's cabin, and Flinn is of the same opinion. Majoochi has fixed himself beyond the possibility of doubt to the bath having been taken into the Queen's cabin. I point this out as one instance of his perjury—instance the one-hundredth. He says, he saw Bergami and the Queen enter the cabinet in which the bath was prepared—the bath was taken not in the dining-room, but in the room next to it. He says he received the pails at the door of the dining-room cabin, carried them through that room to the bath-room; and he fixes the bath-room to be the cabinet, by stating that its size was six or 6even feet, and that the sofa-bed was in it. Now, I take it to be utterly impossible that this witness can escape out of the statement, that the bath was in the small room and not in the cabin. He has wilfully deceived your lordships; for, according to his own statement, he was sleeping in that dining-room. He knew each and every room, and yet, after five successive questions, he ends in fixing upon the cabinet, and not upon the cabin as the bath-room. As to the impossibility of the fact, I leave your lordships to the evidence of Hownam and Flynn; and if it wanted further confirmation, I would borrow, for once, a leaf from Demont: "As far as I can recollect," says this tender, blushing lady, "but I cannot be positively sure, the bath was in the dining-room." So that tho' Bergami had committed a gross indecency by staying in the room while the Queen was in the bath, she cannot be positive where the act took place; and, what is more singular, she actually cannot tell whether there were any wet cloths! There is upon this occasion a most extraordinary inconsistency and contradiction, which show that truth is not in these witnesses.

My lords; in order of time, I should bring your lordships to the Holy Land; but I must for a moment go back to the polacre; for there a circumstance occurred which ought not to be forgotten, and that is this—it is the evidence of the witness who spoke to the fact of the kissing upon the bench. He is asked, "whether any other persons were capable of seeing, this act of indecency." He answers "Why not; because it was a time when other people were taking the fresh air in the cool of the evening; other people might have seen if they chose to look." ^* So that your lordships see that it is credibly asserted and credibly proved, that in the cool of the evening, in the presence of half of the crew by necessity, and of three parts of the family from pleasure, the Queen was committing these acts of indecency which are proved by Mr. Paturzo, without one other of the crew being called to support him!

My lords; I trust that I shall be able to pass over the remaining facts with greater rapidity. I think, my lords, you could hardly expect a counsel arguing zealously at your bar, to trouble your lordships with any detailed observations upon one of the grievous charges which is contained in this bill. My lords, I believe there is one charge unheard of in any court of justice previously to this time, and as absurd in the nature of a criminal charge as perhaps the annals of any country can exemplify. Gracious God! to think that this bill should have the following solemn averment, that her royal highness not only took him into her household, and received into her service his near relations, but "bestowed upon him great and extraordinary marks of favour and distinction, obtained for him orders of knighthood and titles of honour, and conferred upon him a pretended order of knighthood which her royal highness had taken upon herself to institute without any just or lawful authority." My lords, to this charge of unprecedented atrocity—to this violation of prerogative, of God knows whom, and God ^* See Vol. 2, p. 902. knows where too—which, if it be nicely analyzed, is an offence against the dignity of the grand seignior—to this charge, the only one that is proved, I plead guilty. My lords, what shall I say in mitigation of punishment? how shall I extenuate the wickedness of bestowing upon Bergami, Schiavini, Austin, Hownam, Flinn, and Hieronimus a piece of lilac coloured ribbon, one half yard in length. My lords, it is true the offence has been committed; and when you consider the punishment, my lords, let it be commensurate to the length of the ribbon. But, my lords, mark one thing—here is perjury, here too—it was not, as Majoochi has sworn, a straw coloured ribbon, but lilac; and do not let this gross misrepresentation go forth. It is a serious topic, and God knows what the consequence may be to my royal client! it shall be a lilac, and not a straw coloured ribbon. Why do I detain your lordships a moment upon this? for this reason—what must be the dark malignity of their temper and disposition—what must be their rancorous feelings—what must be their atrocious inhumanity—who could dare to bring before this illustrious court and assembly, a charge so frivolous, a charge so unfounded, that in days to come it will stand for everlasting as a mockery upon justice? I pray your lordships to bear this in mind; that ye may see, and that ye may know what the perversion of a vicious disposition can do—how innocence can be perverted into guilt, and that which no honest man dare say is even tinged with immorality, be made the first and foremost charge in a bill of Pains and Penalties!

Now, my lords, one or two words more, and I hasten towards my conclusion. My lords, I wish just to point out to your lordships shortly, one or two points which my learned friends, perhaps with greater wisdom and judgment than myself, thought fit not to touch upon—I mean such contemptible evidence as that which was given by Galdini in page 385. I will, in two words, state his evidence, and point out its incredibility. This said Galdini tells you, that having twenty men waiting for work, and no materials he went to the Queen's house at the Villa d'Este, to look for Guggiari the fattore, because this man employed him—that he went into the kitchen of the fattore, and not finding him there, he went up stairs, and there he saw the Queen and Pergami in an indecent situation. Now, my lords, first of all, let us see the extreme probability of a mason going to look for his master—he walked into the palace of the Queen, nobody thwarted him in his way, there were no servants, there were no grooms of the chamber, there was nobody to interrupt him, but he walked straight I into a chamber between 9 or 10 and 11; in the morning, and he found the Queen in an indecent posture. He says, "I opened the door, and looked, and saw a good many doors, and I was rather out of; humour, for I had lost a great deal of money on account of so many men being upon my back that day, and without work; therefore I opened the door and shut it again." He saw Bergami sitting with his right hand round the neck of the Queen; he cannot say whether it was a sofa, or a chair, or a bed, "because," says he, "I was there only a moment." Why, my lords, when he is asked "How far did you see the breasts of the Queen uncovered? he answers—" I did not stay to look; I saw it, and made my escape. I saw it in the twinkling of an eye, it was uncovered as far as here." Very probable! Now I will tell your lordships what an Italian "twinkling of an eye" is. He says, "When I got into the room, the baron got up and took his arm from the neck of the princess, and told me. "What do you want "from here, you dog I told him you must excuse me signor baron; I came here to look after the fattore, for I have got so many men, and I want the materials to make the men work. Upon which, the baron told me, that that was not the apartment of the fattore."^* So, my lords, I find that according to an Italian explanation a "twinkling of an eye" means an address in these terms: "What do you want here, you dog," an answer at I considerable length, and a reply to that answer. And this is the twinkling of an eye in which you have no possibility of seeing whether the Queen's breasts be uncovered or not! Oh! my lords, this is a choice specimen of my learned friend's collection! this is one of those which ought to be exhibited as they do extraordinary productions in agriculture at the Woburn sheep-shearing. I would show; the man to your lordships, as exhibitions are made at Mr. Pidcock's, as an extraordinary instance of ingenuity.

My lords; there is another circum- ^* See Vol.2, p. 1235. stance. You have heard of a very strange thing taking place in Italy—her majesty, never known to have bathed at Black-heath—there being not a whisper of her having swam over the thames—gets to the Lake of Como; and there she takes it into her head to take a swim in the Brescia. Bianchi says, "the Queen and Pergami were dressed"—he does not know whether they had on linen or silk. My lords, they went into this said river—how deep do you think it was? three quarters of a yard—two feet—no danger of drowning! I quote this as a specimen of her majesty's prudence. And what happened to them when they came out? Their clothes seemed wet at the top." That is in page 399.^* Now, that your lordships should be kept here forty days together—a whole quarantine—in having testimony like this produced, will remain, in after ages, as one of the most extraordinary and incomprehensible events that ever took place!

My lords; I forgot my friend Mahomet; and really I have no time to spare for him. I will just observe, that when we first heard that he was to be brought upon the table, I happened to be in town—my learned friends were on the circuit. I had inquiry made for the individual himself, for he had been at Marseilles; but I could learn nothing of him. What the nature of his dances were I leave your lordships to take from the testimony of Hownam, Vassali, and all the individuals who saw him; but I believe you will soon be able to satisfy your own minds, for I am credibly informed, that Mr. Elliston has sent for him to perform at Drury-lane Theatre. We should have been most happy, if it had been in our power, if your lordships would have indulged us with a little wider stage—that he should have exhibited here, in propriâ personâ; but I must say, that though these subjects may be treated lightly, and as they deserve, with scorn and ridicule, they should never be forgotten by your lordships in your serious consideration of the case. You should ever bear in mind, that misrepresentation is worse than invention. Why? Because one having fact to build upon, may be in part corroborated to ill-judging minds, by persons who speak the truth; that which is false from the beginning can never be corroborated but by conspiracy and perjury— ^* See Vol. 2, p. 1245. therefore, let me rather have to do with a conspirator at once, than to deal with him who, taking truth for his outline, fills up the picture with fraud, falsehood, and misrepresentation.

Now, my lords, there is the Barona. It is worth your while to see how the malice of men can pervert in this instance, not merely an innocent act, but acts of kindness, so as to bear the face and effigy of guilt. My lords, Sacchi—of all the race that your lordships have here seen who stands foremost in the list of damned characters—see how he has represented what her majesty did at the Barona! You see the truth—consign him and his evidence, if you can, to oblivion; but let his name live in the execration of all that are good and honest. My lords, in page 433, speaking of the Barona, he says, "At the beginning there came people of distinction; but in these balls were introduced people of all ranks and both sexes, and even of very low condition; and as between some of the suite of her royal highness and these low women there was some freedom, thus those people of distinction were no longer seen—those persons took those women out from the ballroom, and made them go out at their pleasure and will." He then relates a conversation, to prove the Queen's cognizance of the acts of these individuals. My lords, Demont herself will not bear him out there: she says, "in the presence of the Queen, I saw nothing particular." But now for the fact, my lords. Lieut. Hownam says, "the Baron, a was a small country-house." Your lordships will recollect the description of these entertainments—it was a small country-house, which my learned friends, in their ingenuity, magnified into a spacious and extensive estate, conferred by the Queen upon her favourite Bergami; leaving, at the same time, the extent of this estate in that delightful obscurity, which may enable them to argue without the possibility of detection; whereas, the fact was capable of proof.

Vassali states, that there were entertainments given to amuse the household, and that the whole number did not exceed fifty—it was carnival time, the servants did not come in at first—they did not come in till the Queen had withdrawn.—The prefect of Como, the curate of the Barona, and the baron Cavalletti, and his ^* See Vol. 2, p. 1269. wife, were there, and none of these persons ever saw the slightest act of impropriety. Now, my lords, I say, if the facts were true, were not those who promoted this charge, bound to have produced the prefect Tamasia, bound to have produced the baron Cavalletti, bound to produce the curate, who is vouched, or at least bound to have made their inquiries?

My lords; I told your lordships there were many points of this case that it was my intention to pass by; but there are one or two observations upon the occurrence at Carlsruhe which I dare not omit. We now stand, my lords, in this peculiar predicament—that the evidence of Kress bearing upon the person accused, she is forced by her government to attend at your lordships' bar—the evidence for the party accused remains absent in Germany, notwithstanding the exertions of his majesty's ministers. My lords, what say I?—Blame upon his majesty's ministers I cast none. Blame upon some one I do cast; and I say this—that Kress is perjured, or that the minister of the grand duke of Baden has told a falsehood:—Kress is asked, in p. 192, "Who asked you to come over here?" "At Carlsruhe, our minister M. Berstett."—" When you were at Carlsruhe, did any other person speak to you about coming over here?" "M. de Geilling."—" Who is M. de Geilling?" "He is at court, I do not know what office he holds there."—Then, my lords, at page 202, she is asked, "What minister are you speaking of?" "M. de Berstett; that gentleman told me that if I would not go voluntarily, I should be forced."—"Whose minister is he?" "I cannot tell this."—'Is he not the minister of the duke of Baden? "—Now, my lords, minister of the duke of Baden he is—it is sworn he told Kress, "Go you shall, in consequence of the applications which have been made for your testimony, and give it at the bar of the tribunal in England." If he did not, Kress is forsworn; if he did, never believe in the annals of even a German court was baser tergiversation and falsehood than that which appears in his dispatch of the 13th of October: he says, "The object of the propositions made to me verbally by your excellency, appeared to me to be, that the grand duke, my august master, should give to baron d'Ende not only his permission, but his orders, to proceed to Eng- ^* See Vol. 2, p. 976. land; to which I had the honour to remark, that I knew too well the fixed determination of his royal highness, never to take part directly in any thing which might relate to the solemn proceeding at this time before the tribunal of the House of Peers in England, to dare to propose to him to give any such orders to a person belonging to his court.^*" Did baron Berstett give orders to Kress or did he not? Who is to be believed? I quote the next paragraph—"If any agents of the British government have succeeded in inducing subjects of the grand duke to proceed of their own accord to England, I have to remark to your excellency, that this could never have occurred except is the case of private individuals." What, then, the government never did interfere! Then Kress has spoken untruly—" I hope your excellency will find in this exposition of facts relating to this object of your mission, the most convincing proofs of the impartiality and justice which have guided and will ever guide the conduct of my government on this subject.^*" My lords, if that be true, then is Barbara Kress a perjured witness; or, if the other has been the case, if there has been an influence more powerful than that of Great Britain which has succeeded not only in detaining the baron d'Ende from this country but in urging the minister of the duke of Baden to falsify himself in the eyes of the world, then I ask your lordships, whether there be even one among you who would tell me I am to proceed in my defence as to this transaction of Carlsruhe, where British influence has failed, where other influence has compelled the accusing witness to come, and has held back the testimony for the accused? I will not stain your lordships' justice with the reflection by dwelling for one moment more on this. I am persuaded there is not any honest peer in this illustrious assembly, who would fix on his own conscience the everlasting wound of considering for an instant the evidence of Kress and the case at Carlsruhe. If, indeed, he ever bears it in remembrance, it will be to think with contempt and abhorrence of those Wirtemberg and Hanoverian ambassadors, who have taken upon themselves the honourable office of inspectors of dirty sheets and searchers into foul-clothes-bags—he will think, I say, with contempt on those individuals, ^* See p. 963 of the present Volume. and I trust, for the honour of England, I may say, he will believe them to have been actuated in their proceedings by the native propensity of their souls to grovel in filth and obscenity, and that they were not set upon such a disgraceful task by any individual who boasts the name of Englishman, much less by him who wears the Crown.

My lords; I shall trouble your lord-ships with no more instances, and not one single observation upon any other of the particular accusations in this case; but there is one point which I find myself bound to bring under your consideration.: My lords, we nave closed this case with out producing before your lordships the countess Oldi, Brunette the half-sister of I Demont, Schiavini, William Austin or others, who are now in attendance upon the Queen. With an astonishment that I shall never forget, did I hear my learned friends calling upon us to produce other witnesses, when they have established no guilt—to say, "You shall establish your innocence; "as if this were an inquiry into the conduct of the Queen, and not an hostile accusation, to be met, fairly met, with every lawful opposition upon our part—as if my learned friends would be justified in calling upon us to put to the bar of this House one single witness, when they have established no case. My lords, let us see how these witnesses stand: at one period of the cause, my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, after having finished perhaps one of the most able and eloquent arguments ever yet addressed to this House against calling Brunette, said, "notwithstanding all this, I will call her." My lords, my learned friend was fight at that period of the cause—he was right, because our witnesses had not then arrived. My learned friend did not know that we should then be able to take the case, particle by particle, and show to demonstration its fraud and falsehood. Therefore, said he, we must meet this case thus—wc must meet it by general evidence of the Queen's conduct, and by exposing to my learned friend's cross-examination all that Brunette may be able to say. But, my lords, now the scene is 'changed; and, in point of common sense, I ask your lordships, how the witnesses would stand? They are the witnesses, I admit, most known to the Queen—who have had the best opportunities of judging of her conduct—who are under the greatest obligations to her. If, my lords, no one syllable could be distorted against us, think what a cry would be raised—if all their evidence was praise and expurgation,—" O, they are not credible; they are under obligations to the Queen; they are the relations of Bergami, and truth cannot be expected from their lips." Would any counsel who did not deserve to have his gown stripped from his shoulders produce witnesses under circumstances of this description? Aye, but, my lords, is that all? If they were essential witnesses—if they were persons of credibility—why, I ask, were they not produced On the other side? Why should my learned friend, the solicitor-general, say, we have laid before you all testimony deserving of credit, not as parties, but as fair investigators? What! my lords, is the accuser to claim the exclusive privilege of cross-examination? Is he to reject those witnesses as non-essential, as not deserving of credit, and to say, "upon our case they are useless, but to you they are essential witnesses, and call them you shall." Surely, my lords, no man possessing judgment, would have so acted—necessity alone, the want of other proof alone, could have justified it. Does that necessity exist upon the present occasion? Let my learned friends point out one single charge which is supported by credible testimony which we have not met, one single accusation which we have not rebutted. Before I bring Brunette to this bar, I must have something farther to do. My lords, I will not bring her here to disprove charges resting upon the testimony that no man can venture to give credit to; to expose her to the merciless fangs of such a cross-examination as lady Charlotte Lindsay and other witnesses have been exposed to. Oh! my lords, it is not that I feel the terror of a cross-examination for any one of those persons who surround her majesty. Where that Cross examination is confined to the conduct of the Queen herself, there I fear not, even though the lapse of time might have left opportunity for misrepresentation. But, my lords, when I saw this when my memory furnishes mc with the instance of my lord Guildford being cross-examined to some declarations made at a private dining table, as to a Greek servant having been with the Queen, not one word of charge having escaped my learned friend as to that matter until it came out on cross-examination;—when I find another question put as to the ceiling of the room at the Villa d'Este-ano- ther charge which never has appeared from my learned friends even at this moment,—should I expose a witness to that, where I had no knowledge of the fact, and in re-examination cannot set it right? My, lords, the Queen should be tried by her; own acts, by what she herself has said and! done. Every witness produced for the prosecution must in his evidence in chief, speak to those words and acts of the Queen; but if we produce him—if in the course of the whole six years, he happens, either from lapse of memory, from a quarrel with Bergami, from any one of the numberless incidents which may have occurred in that time—to have done what? Why, to have uttered an expression which, by possibility, could now be tortured into offence, into a disrespectful opinion of the Queen, what should we do? The Queen would suffer, not for what she did, or what she said, but for what one of her witnesses might, by accident, in a hurry or in a passion, have said or have done. She would be tried by the acts and words of others, and not by her own.

There lies back one other observation. Your lordships remember how Mr. Hownam was asked as to his declarations. Your lordships remember how other witnesses have been thus interrogated. My lords, there is one other circumstance; the purpose of inquiring to the declaration of witnesses is to attack their credit by proving contradictions. Now, my lords, would any man who presumes to advocate, be justified in putting witnesses to be examined to their declarations, when the whole depot at Cotton Garden may be expected to come and contradict those declarations? My lords, thinking as I do of this case—believing it to be a false, foul, and rank conspiracy—I have no hesitation in saying that, judging not by argument, but judging by the past, by the records upon your lordships table, not by what witnesses may do, but by what they have done, it would be easy for the agents of my learned friends to enter that scene of pollution, and bring witness upon witness to contradict any declaration which the best and most honest witness might have made. Here therefore say I, my lords, necessity has not called upon roe to discharge that duty; and I hope that it is the first duty of a counsel not to expose his client to the risk of injury where no man who has honesty in his heart dare say there is an accusation proved.

My lords; I think I am justified in saying, that there is not a point in this case which requires further elucidation. If I were to look at and examine the difference between the witnesses we have produced and the witnesses produced on the other side, fearlessly could I hold up to your lordships the contrast which exists between them. I would say, "Look at their character—look at their conduct—look at the obligation to speak the truth on the one side, and look at the absence of all those qualities on the other." But, my lords, one word more. Witnesses you have had in abundance—Your lordships have seen a commission instituted for the express purpose of doing what? enquiring into the guilt or innocence of the princess of Wales. My lords, I know not the tenor of the instructions they acted under; but "by their fruits shall you know them." I know that the moment they were established at Milan, they began taking the testimony of her discarded servants; and they never once availed themselves of the opportunity of examining whether that testimony could be corroborated or confirmed by persons of greater respectability in life. My lords, what is the state of the case? I ask your lordships if ever such an instance was seen before, that the witnesses against the accused are discharged by the accused. They are taken into the employment of the prosecutor himself. My lords, consider here the opening of bribery—a temptation to the violation of an oath. Look, my lords, I beseech you, what is the state of the case. Restelli is taken by Reganti; Sacchi comes next; and they themselves are sent to seek confirmation of those very inventions of which they were the first promoters. Gracious God! my lords, where can any trust or confidence be reposed where persons have so acted? Did ever any one yet hear of two witnesses like Sacchi and Demont having been kept at the sole expense of the prosecutors for the fifteen months preceding the day of trial; and of two others, Restelli and Majoochi, in the employment of the government? My lords, I say that these facts are more than amply sufficient to demonstrate, that that commission sought not investigation—sought not an opportunity to acquit my royal mistress from the foul slanders which were propagated against her, but they sought to raise up an accusation against her, and to bring it before the world to sully and degrade her character.

My lords, there is not one of the witnesses here produced who possessed any one of those qualifications which best insured the observance of truth; character they have not to lose; here at least punishment they have none to dread; impunity they may avail themselves of at any moment they please; and they have before them an example, by former conspirators against the Queen who have never yet been punished—they have every encouragement to do the deeds which they were paid for doing; they have every hope of reward if they succeed; no fear of punishment if they are detected.

My lords; I say not one word more as to the proof of this conspiracy. I think my learned friend Mr. Denman has left it so, that no observation from me can be requisite or necessary, save this, that the persons accused, are colonel Browne, Vimercati, Riganti, and Restelli. I heard time asked for for colonel Browne—I heard not one word said of Vimercati, who could have disproved this charge. The one, Restelli, is gone to Italy, and his departure has been justified upon false pretences—the other, Riganti, the very individual who first procured Restelli, him my learned friends have not dared to call. Now, had they done this—had they boldly put Riganti to the bar and brought him to contradict the testimony of Omati and Pomi, then might they have said, with something like a seeming consciousness of truth, "We have done all which the time allowed us in the name of justice—presume not against those who cannot defend themselves." But when they have neglected to avail themselves of the means in their power—when they have not desired to bring one of the fathers of this conspiracy to this bar to answer for himself—away with the flimsey pretence—away with the false unfounded argument, that any of those who are accused could, if time had been allowed, have relieved themselves from the accusation! Where the time was no impediment, no attempt at justification has been made. Therefore say I, that the demand for time can weigh not with your lordships as any presumption of the innocence of the parties; and, if I wanted any one argument to add to that, it is this—that never once in the course of the whole cross-examination did my learned friends presume to hint, that, as far as Vimercati was concerned, the whole of this diabolical plot, the whole of this accusation which we make, that this has been carried into effect by means which honest men should shrink from, was not true. Such, my lords, have been the means used against the Queen. I say nothing as to the neglect of means which those who are her accusers ought to have employed to have discovered the truth. All I say is this, that having all the power that the first Lord of the Treasury could give—having foreign ministers at their command—having established a commission at Milan—and having sent their German agents throughout the continent of Europe, never once have those unlimited powers of inquisition been exercised to attain the ends of justice—Sir W. Gell remains in Italy unquestioned—Mr. Craven unquestioned—Dr. Holland unexamined—Lady Charlotte Lindsay unsought for—Sicard is at home. I do not say what might have been the course, if those individuals had refused information, but I do say that it ought to have been sought, and that when all those powers were united in the hands of the accuser, it was the most extraordinary, the most solitary instance of their exertion of it, to find that lieutenant Hownam was sent for by the first lord of the Admiralty to be asked where James the seaman was last heard of. The industry which has been employed in support of this prosecution, had it been employed in a bonâ fide investigation of the truth, would have I saved your lordships from the painful necessity of all these proceedings—would; have saved the country from the incalculable mischief of this discussion—would I have preserved us from all those evils every one laments; and no one can estimate, my lords, as to the length of this case. I have to thank your lordships for the indulgence with which you have heard me, after your attention must have been so much exhausted by so many days applied to this subject—I thank your lordships for your patient indulgence, and, in perfect confidence, I leave the honour of my client, not to your mercy, but to your justice.

Mr. Brougham.

—My lords, I here close the Defence of her Majesty.

The Counsel were directed to withdraw; and the House adjourned.