§ The order of the day being read for the second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An "Act to deprive her Majesty Caroline "Amelia Elizabeth, &c." the Counsel were called in. Then
Mr. Solicitor Generalresumed—
My lords; in pursuance of the course which I chalked out for myself when I had the honour of addressing your lordships on Saturday, it is not my intention to enter at large into the consideration of what took place at Naples; but there are some circumstances, as detailed in the evidence adduced on the part of the defence, which appear to me to be of a character so striking, that it will be impossible for me to pass them over without notice. My lords, the first observation that arises is on that singular walk on the terrace, and the still more singular conduct of Mr. Craven, as connected with that transaction. It is stated, that her royal highness was seen walking upon the terrace. In the course of the cross-examination, on a question put by one of your lordships Mr. Craven says, "I did not observe that her royal highness and Pergami touched each other." It is endeavoured to be impressed on your lordships minds, that there was nothing singular in that transaction; and yet, my lords, it is impossible to reconcile that opinion with the most extraordinary conduct of Mr. Craven, if that opinion be indeed well-founded. My lords, if there was nothing striking in the circumstance—if it was nothing more than the ordinary attendance of an ordinary servant upon his mis- 1385 tress, I would ask, whether it is possible to suppose, that such a communication could have been made to her royal highness as is represented in this evidence. My lords, let me for a moment suppose it possible, that instead of having been attended upon that occasion by Bergami, she had been attended by Sicard, or had been attended by Hieronimus, can your lordships believe, that Mr. Craven would have thought it necessary to have made any remonstrance and expostulation? Is it not palpable, that there was something existing in the mind of Mr. Craven, either arising from what he had before observed, or what he had before heard, that induced him to caution her royal highness against a repetition of such conduct? My lords, it is stated, that the terrace was overlooked by the adjoining houses, and that therefore it would have been the height of imprudence for her royal highness to have walked there in an improper manner attended by her servant. But, my lords, looking through the whole of this case in every! part of it, as in cases of a similar description and character, we always perceive, that there is that extraordinary mixture of caution and imprudence which almost always exhibits itself upon occasions of this nature. My lords, I do say, that it is impossible to reconcile the conduct of Mr. Craven with any other supposition than this—that either from what he had observed, or from what lie had heard, there were suspicions in his mind that persons could of necessity misinterpret this apparent intimacy between her royal highness and Bergami, and that they might interpret it in such a way as to be in the extremest degree injurious to her character.
My lords; connected with this fact, I beg to direct your attention to the evidence of lord Llandaff, which is most striking, most remarkable. My lord Llandaff having stated that he knew Bergami, is asked, "Do you recollect the names of the other attendants at Naples, when you dined with her majesty?" "The servants? No, I do not."—"Can you state any circumstance which has impressed the name of Pergami on your mind, without your knowing the name of any other attendant at table?" Pergami was a very singular figure, and I knew him by that. I recollected him by his figure, he was a strong looking man." Now, I beg to direct your lordships particular attention to the next question. "Is your lordship to 1386 be understood that you became acquainted with his name by remarking his figure, and from that circumstance asking what his name was?" "I never asked what his name was; but he being pointed out to me as Pergami, and from his figure, I did not forget him. I recollected him afterwards from that circumstance." My lords, why was Bergami pointed out to the earl of Llandaff? Is it possible to misinterpret this fact? Is it not obvious from this circumstance, that Bergami, as connected with her royal highness, was the subject of curiosity and inquiry, and that when lord Llandaff went into the room where Bergami was attending, Bergami was pointed out "that is Pergami!" or possibly in answer to a question put by lord Llandaff "Which is Pergami?" "That is the man." My lords, does this not speak for itself? Did he know the name of any other individual servant? Was any other servant pointed out to him or marked in any way from the rest? My lords; the remonstrance of Mr. Craven arose from reports probably in circulation—perhaps from what had actually taken place upon the terrace—from reports influencing, as I imagine, the mind of Mr. Craven, at the time he gave that extraordinary advice to her royal highness. My lords, it is from minute circumstances of this description, and applying to those circumstances the knowledge we have of the operations of the human mind, and the conduct of men in particular cases, that we deduce, perhaps with more certainty and more precision, the truth of our reasoning, than from circumstances which at first are more broad and more striking.
My lords; I beg leave to direct your lordships attention also to the evidence of lady Charlotte Lindsay. She is called by my learned friends, for the purpose of speaking to the character and conduct of her royal highness when at Naples, with reference to Bergami. My lords, a most extraordinary selection, a most unaccountable choice of my learned friends, if the story which they state, is correct—if the opinion which they profess to entertain of the conduct of her royal highness be indeed well-founded! She entered the service of her royal highness only about twelve days before her royal highness quitted Naples. Your lordships find, in that short interval, many remarkable circumstances occurring. If her royal highness and lady Charlotte Lindsay were to 1387 walk in the gardens La Favorita at Naples, Bergami was the man to attend them—if they were to renew their walks at Civita Vecchia, Bergami was the man always to attend them—if they were to dine in private, the person to wait upon them, was Bergami! On the road, my lords, he rides as courier; and, such is the extraordinary condescension of her royal highness, that she takes from the carriage a bottle, hands it to Bergami, and he drinks from the mouth of the bottle, and returns it again to her royal highness; who, with equal condescension, receives it, and replaces it in the carriage.
Mr. Solicitor General.—My lords, my learned friends desire me to read the evidence. "Did he afterwards return the bottle to her royal highness?" "I cannot be positive. I fancy that he returned the bottle; but I cannot be positive. Whether he returned the bottle to the carriage or not, or whether he threw the bottle away I cannot be certain."—"To the best of your recollection, which way was it? Did he return the bottle, or did he throw it away?" "I rather think that he returned the bottle to the carriage." Can your lordships, then, entertain any doubt as to that having been the fact? And am I not justified, therefore, in calling upon your lordships to draw from that extraordinary circumstance the inference of a connection of the most extraordinary kind, existing at that time between her royal highness and Bergami?
My lords; her ladyship afterwards quits the service of her royal highness. She is asked, whether she did not state that it was a vast relief to her mind having come to the determination of quitting the service of her royal highness? She does not deny that such conversation passed. She is again asked, whether she did not state, that no woman, with any regard to her character, could continue in the service of her royal highness? To which she gives precisely the same answer. She is asked again, whether she did not quit the service of her royal highness in consequence of reports of so unpleasant and degrading a nature, that it was impossible to continue in her service? She admits that that circumstance it was, that operated upon her mind, and induced her to quit the service of her royal highness. She is asked, whether she had not stated, that had it not been from a desire to assist a parti- 1388 cular individual to whom allusion is made, she would not at an earlier period, and long before, have quitted the service of her royal highness, to which she answered, "I think it is very possible I might have made use of those words. I do not recollect distinctly that I did, but I think it possible." So that her ladyship says, it is very possible she might have made use of those terms, and that it was in consequence of a desire that she felt to assist that particular individual that she was induced to remain in the service of her royal highness. Now, my lords, this is the evidence, given by lady Charlotte Lindsay, who is the only lady that is called on the part of the defence, for the purpose of speaking to the character and conduct of her royal highness. It will be for your lordships to say, looking at the whole of the evidence and comparing the one part with the other, how far you think that this testimony is serviceable to the cause which it is intended to support. My lords; some observations have been made on the conduct of my learned friend the attorney-general, as if he had betrayed some private confidence in dictating those questions which were proposed to lady Charlotte Lindsay. My learned friend has himself made some observations in reply to that charge. I know precisely the situation in which my learned friend stood. I know the honourable manner in which he acted; and the parties engaged in this transaction are indebted to my learned friend for the course he has pursued, and for the effect of those honourable feelings which, with respect to that part of the transaction, I know to have actuated his mind. My lords, I will not be more particular upon the subject; the occasion does not call for it.
My lords; there are other witnesses called, for the purpose of speaking to the conduct of her royal highness at Naples. Sir W. Gell and Mr. Craven. But, my lords, Sir W. Gell and Mr. Craven are merely the pageants of state. When a public dinner was to be given, they dined with her royal highness, and had the opportunity of observing her public conduct and deportment; but, when there was no company, you have it from lady Charlotte Lindsay, that she was in the habit of dining by herself in a private apartment, and neither Sir W. Gell nor Mr. Craven had any opportunity of forming a correct estimate of her conduct. I think therefore, my lords, the evidence of 1389 Sir W. Gell and Mr. Craven, giving it the utmost effect to which it is entitled, cannot have much effect in this cause. My lords, of a character still more feeble was the evidence of lord Llandaff a mere visitor to her royal highness. Lord Glenbervie stands in the same situation: he merely visited her two or three times a week at dinner; and Dr. Holland states, that he saw her only at dinner, and that in the other parts of the day, he pursued his own professional studies. Another gentleman, Mr. Mills, is called to speak to the conduct of her royal highness, so far as it came under his observation, he having visited her at the Villa Brandi, and once at Pesaro. My lords, this is all the evidence of this character and description which has been adduced by my learned friends: but, let us look on the other side, and let us ask what has been omitted. It is not so much front what has been produced, as from what has been with held, that I draw my inference on this part of the case. My learned friends have felt the necessity of calling some evidence of this description, and if so, why have they not called that which would have been the best evidence—I mean lady Elizabeth Forbes? She resided with her royal highness during the whole time of her continuance at Naples. Lady Charlotte Lindsay came only twelve days before the departure of her royal highness, and she is the witness who is preferred. Lady Elizabeth Forbes, whose window commanded the terrace to which allusion has been made, and who continued in the service of her royal highness at Naples for four months, is not produced as a witness before you.
At Genoa, lady Charlotte Campbell joined her royal highness. She continued with her for a considerable portion of time. She afterwards followed her to Milan, and continued for a short time in the service of her royal highness in that city; but she is not called. Now, my lords, my learned friends make it a matter of reproach to us, that we have not called those witnesses—from the beginning to the end, it was stated, that it was our duty to do so. Is it meant to be said, that it was the duty of the attorney-general and myself? That never can be so stated; because, before we had any thing to do with the conducting of this proceeding, the proceeding was already instituted, the evidence was prepared; and, if after that, we had applied to those in- 1390 dividuals, the natural witnesses on the part of the defence, I know what clamour would have been excited, I know what language would have been held, by our adversaries. Your lordships recollect that some application was made to Messrs. Hownam and Flinn, not as to the merits of the trial, but merely as to a single insulated fact, namely as to the residence of the English seamen, that had been on board the polacre. Even that was made the subject of insinuation, and of charge; and if, therefore, after this proceeding was instituted, my learned friend and myself had come into contact with the natural witnesses to be called on the part of the defence, to what species of attacks we should have been exposed by the zeal and eloquence of my learned friends!
But, my lords, it is said, they ought to have been examined before; and that is a charge not personally directed against my learned friend and myself, but directed against another quarter. My lords, is it not clear, that any application to the servants of her royal highness, for the purpose of ascertaining whether she had misconducted herself, must have been fruitless and unavailing? Would they have betrayed to other persons the secrets of their mistress? Would they, as volunteers, have stated any thing to her prejudice? Every man conversant with the world, every person knowing any thing of the particular individuals to whom I am now referring, must know, and must feel that their lips must have been sealed upon the subject, and that it would have been quite impossible to have obtained any correct information from them. But my learned friends think, that at all hazards, we should have called them as witnesses. My lords, I appeal to one single fact as a decisive answer to that statement—look at the evidence of lady Charlotte Lindsay—observe the impression which it would make upon your minds at the close of the examination in chief, and contrast that impression with the impression now upon your lordships' minds at the close of the cross-examination. Your lordships know, that if we had called as witnesses those honourable persons, we could not have cross-examined; we must have taken the statement, such as it would in the first instance have appeared, and the truth would of necessity have been concealed. If we, for instance, had examined as our witness lady Charlotte Lindsay, do your lordships 1391 suppose, that those facts now disclosed in the cross-examination, would ever have appeared upon your lordships Minutes? Is not this, therefore, an answer to all the arguments which have been so triumphantly urged on the other side?
My learned friend, Mr. Brougham, says, that we are conducting this case contrary to all those rules by which great cases are conducted in courts of justice—that we are conducting it upon the little and narrow scale upon which trifling disputes at Nisi Prius are conducted. My lords, I deny that. It has been confidently stated on the other side, in the first instance by Mr. Brougham, and the statement of Mr. Brougham has been reechoed with great eloquence and zeal, by the learned gentlemen who have followed him; but I deny that the principle they have laid down, is a correct principle on subjects of this nature. The question is, whether the witnesses are naturally the witnesses for the prosecution, or for the defence; and it would be the height of absurdity in those persons conducting the prosecution, to call witnesses with whom they had no communication; who are connected with the adverse party; who would be disposed, as far as possible, to assist and support the interest of the adverse party. It would be the height of extravagance and folly to adopt such a course of proceeding. But when we are told, that the learned judges would have reproved us, if we had pursued such a line of conduct in any criminal case, my lords, I deny that position. I recollect an instance of a trial for the greatest offence known to our laws, the trial of Thistle-wood for high treason at the Old Bailey; and I shall beg to state what was the course pursued upon that occasion. A witness of the name of Adams was called to depose against the prisoner: he deposed to certain conversations, which he stated had taken place in the presence of the prisoner. Was it ever supposed to be incumbent on the counsel for the prosecution, to call all the persons stated to be present, to confirm the testimony of Adams. No, my lords, we said, "We have proved the charge, our witness, Adams, states, that such and such conversations took place in the presence of such and such persons with the prisoner; the prisoner may call those persons to contradict them; and if he does not call them, he, in effect, confirms the testimony of the witnesses." According to the ar- 1392 gument of my learned friend, my lord chief justice, the chief baron, and the learned judges, ought instantly to have interposed, and said, "No, sir, it is your duty to call every witness stated to be present at the conversation." But, my lords, when the lord chief justice came to sum up the evidence to the jury, his language was to this effect: "An objection is made, that those witnesses are not called—for it is a common and usual objection, my learned friends are not entitled to the praise of novelty upon this subject—"the observation, I am sorry to say, on the absence of the witnesses, presses with greater force on the prisoner, because there are three or four persons present at the conversations mentioned by this witness, either of whom would be a competent witness to contradict Adams." So that your lordships see, so far from adopting the sentiments and opinions of my learned friends, the learned judges, upon that occasion, pursued a line of conduct directly the reverse. Where a witness who stands in some degree of suspicion, on giving his evidence, vouches other individuals who were present on that occasion, he confirms his testimony, and you will place considerable reliance upon it, before the season arrives for its contradiction; but when there has been an opportunity for calling those witnesses, and they are not called, their absence is the greatest possible confirmation of the prosecutor's case.
My lords; I thought it necessary to go a little out of my way for the sake of making these observations; for, from the beginning to the end of this proceeding, for a period now of nearly three months, we had this most extraordinary, but not altogether novel doctrine rung in our ears—stated, in the first instance, with extraordinary powers of eloquence, by my learned friend, Mr. Brougham; followed in the same style by Mr. Denman, Mr. Williams; and Dr. Lushington also commenting upon it, and insisting upon this position, with great constancy and vigour. My lords, it is a position utterly untenable: if acted upon, it would defeat the very ends of justice, it would discredit almost every prosecution which ever was instituted. I enter my protest against it, I say it cannot be supported—it is a doctrine pregnant with extravagance and absurdity.
But, my lords, as I have stated, with the exception of two or three witnesses, 1393 speaking only to a scanty portion of time, the whole testimony is a blank in that respect. Perhaps I am incorrect—Mr. Hownam is called for the purpose of speaking to the character and conduct of her royal highness, and to the manner in which she conducted herself—whether there was any thing degrading in her character and conduct. Mr. Hownam distinctly says, that there was not. But how are we to estimate the reliance to be placed, as to points of this nature, upon the testimony of lieut. Hownam?—Lieut. Hownam tells you, that he thinks it was not at all degrading to sit down at the same table with her courier, dressed in the livery of a courier. The splendid uniform, as he chose to call it, gave a colour to the case, that rendered it not at all reprehensible. My lords, when I refer to that fact, it will be for you, after he has so committed himself, to say what reliance is to be placed upon the sentiments and feeling of Mr. Hownam, as to what is graceful and proper, and consistent and decorous in a person of the rank and station of her royal highness. His evidence may be struck from the notes, as far as relates to any support it gives to the character and conduct of the Queen.
But, my lords, you have two other witnesses—singular witnesses to have been called for the purpose—Vassali and Olivieri, soldiers in the army of Buonaparté,—the only two remaining witnesses who are called—for what? For the singular purpose of speaking to the propriety of the conduct of her royal highness towards Bergami, and of Bergami towards his mistress! My lords, what an unaccountable selection! I Would it not have been better for my learned friend in this case to have said, "I will call no witnesses—I will let the high station and illustrious descent of the princess of Wales speak for themselves—I will oppose that as a barrier against all the countervailing testimony you bring against it?" That would have been a noble and dignified proceeding; but, to descend so low as to take characters from such men as Vassali and Olivieri it is extraordinary! It is strange my learned friends should be blind as to the effect of such a course of proceeding, and such an attempt to mislead the judgment of such a tribunal as the present! But, my lords, there are some other circumstances equally remarkable. There is not a single woman who has been called, except lady Charlotte Lindsay. 1394 We have heard something of countess Pino—we have heard something of the wife of the prefect Tamasia—we have heard something of the wife of Cavaletti—persons about her royal highness; but though we have heard their names frequently, those persons females, always the best judges of the propriety of female conduct, have not been produced before you. We have an order upon your lordships table for the marchioness Segratia, who has arrived in this country; but she has not been produced! My lords, how are we to account for this extraordinary mode of proceeding? Is it not an admission, that the evidence they have it in their power to produce would not assist their case?
My lords; a great deal has been said about the evidence of Majoochi. I trust, therefore, I shall be indulged in making a few observations upon his testimony. I do not mean to go at length into the circumstances; because it has been so sifted and canvassed by my learned friend, the attorney-general. With respect to the contradictions of his evidence, they are of the most perilous description. He states a continued dining at Genoa, and from that place as far as he recollected. That these parties did dine together is clear beyond the possibility of doubt; and whether it began at Genoa, or the Villa d'Este, or at Bellinzona, is matter of little consequence. He had no motives to misrepresent, and it would be too much to infer from that circumstance, that there was an intention on his part to deceive you. My lords, I may explain it this way—they breakfasted together at Genoa, and you have it in the evidence of lieut. Hownam, that at Genoa it was, that Bergami first ceased to wait at table. That may account for the suspicion in his mind; but your lordships recollect that her royal highness frequently dined privately at Genoa, and there is no evidence to show, that on some one or other of those occasions, Bergami did not dine with her. There is no evidence, therefore, to contradict the evidence of Majoochi. But I do not think it necessary to resort to that explanation—it was a mistake, perhaps; but there was no motive for the mistake, and it would therefore be too much to say, that it throws a discredit upon his testimony.
My lords; there is another observation about the "secret" stair-case. Every body must know that the expression im- 1395 ported nothing more than a back staircase; and therefore to call Mr. Hownam to swear it was not a secret stair-case leading to apartments, appears to me a futile attempt at contradicting Majoochi. But, my lords, another circumstance is stated—that he had been continually in the habit of waiting upon baron Ompteda, and that he did not recollect having waited upon him till they came to the Villa Villani. Your lordships recollect that the evidence was, that he sometimes dined with her royal highness in company. There is nothing, therefore, to lead him particularly to distinguish Ompteda; but they came to the Villa Villani, where they were living by themselves, and where the introduction of a person of the rank of Ompteda would make an impression upon his mind. Then it is, that he says, "I remember his being at the Villa Villani. I remember him perfectly."
Mr. Solicitor General.—This is the passage—"Did you ever see the baron Ompteda?" "I do not remember the name."—"Did you ever, during the year after the long voyage, see a German baron at the Villa d'Este?" "In the house Villani, I saw him. He was a Prussian." It is quite clear he was speaking of the baron Ompteda, and no other person.
But, my lords, an attempt has been made to impeach the testimony of this witness, in consequence of some contradiction arising out of the evidence of Carrington. Carrington, who has been introduced to you with so much ceremony, by my learned friends—Carrington, who is stated by Mr. Denman to have been "born a gentleman"—he is the individual who is brought hero for the purpose of overthrowing the testimony of Majoochi. Born a gentleman! My lords, how does that apply to a man who states himself to have had the opportunity of placing himself in the situation of a gentleman, namely, in the situation of an officer in his majesty's navy, which might have led him, in a certain course of events, to the highest possible distinctions, abandoning that offer, and consenting to become the servant of another gentleman? Is that the feeling, and are those the highest possible characteristics of a man "born a gentleman?" But he was poor; he had not wherewithal to sustain himself in that situation. My lords, how 1396 would a man, born a gentleman, and with the feelings of a gentleman, have acted upon that occasion? He would have said, "Whatever may be my poverty; however abject my situation in those respects, I will endeavour by the purest, the most upright, and the most unexceptionable conduct, to make amends for that, and to obtain the respect of those with whom I am associated." Those would have been the feelings of a man entitled to the encomiums bestowed upon him by my learned friend: he would not have shrunk from so handsome an offer, and have condescended to have become the valet of sir William Gell. My lords, those censures so indiscriminately poured upon the witnesses on our side, when they come to be examined, your lordships see how absolutely untenable they are; but when your lordships come to examine the evidence of this man—see how fallacious it is!—It is something that passed two years before—it is first of all stated in the kitchen; then it is stated in the courtyard, in such a way, that when your lordships come to sift it, the story has all the appearance of being a fiction and a fable. But, my lords, let us suppose this conversation really to have passed, and sec what inference can be drawn from it.—Is a man to be condemned because he does not recollect a conversation that passed three or four years before? Is that to destroy his credit with your lordships? Is no allowance to be made for the frailty of memory? If that be the position of my learned friends—if that be the doctrine we are holding here—what becomes of the testimony of lieutenant Hownam? What becomes of his want of recollection, with respect to a conversation, which, if it had taken place, never could by possibility have escaped from his recollection—a conversation, my lords, with a man of education? Majoochi is a man illiterate. Let me ask your lordships, then, even if you suppose this conversation did take place, whether any fair and reasonable mind can possibly come to the conclusion, that because he states he does not recollect the conversation, therefore he comes here for the purpose of misleading you? But, my lords, why should he have denied the conversatoin? Did it reflect any stigma on his own character? Had he any motive to conceal it. He is supposed to have taken the part of his mistress—to have entered into a personal contest upon the subject of the conduct of this indivi- 1397 dual; and, if he did so, what foundation could there be for his denying that which it did honour to his feelings to own?
But, my lords, when a witness is called for the purpose of contradicting the testimony of another, it becomes important to consider in what situation that individual himself stands; and I beg to recall to your recollection, that this witness, Carrington, distinctly and positively contradicts himself; and finding he had contradicted himself, he afterwards endeavours to escape out of that contradiction, in a manner which I am sure your lordships will not approve. He is contradicted by the express and positive testimony of sir John Beresford. My lords, he is asked, "Were you in any other ship in his majesty's service, than the Poictiers?" According to my apprehension and ray understanding it would be impossible to misapprehend that question. The witness answers, "No." Then he is asked, "You are to be understood, that you were never in his majesty's service before?" alluding to his service on board the Poictiers; to which he answers distinctly, "No." His attention is twice directed to the point, and twice he swears distinctly, "No." Now, my lords, it is said, what interest could he have had in stating that in the first instance which was incorrect? He states, that he was first in the merchant service, afterwards in the land service, and that afterwards he served on board the Poictiers. It turns out, that he had been originally impressed into the service, and handed over from ship to ship-till he came to the Poictiers. A little feeling of vanity perhaps, and not considering it of importance, might induce him to say, he had entered on board the Poictiers; but it is not that upon which I rely. When he finds he has stated that, in his original examination, which is false, what I rely upon is, his endeavouring to explain it in such a way as he must have known to be untrue. He had stated carelessly, foolishly, and improperly, that which was not true—he is then asked, "How came you to say so," and he says, "I understood the question to apply to my having been with sir John Beresford as a midshipman." My lords, I will ask any person with common understanding, and common apprehension, to look at these Minutes, and say, whether it is possible he could have so understood the question; and, if he could not have done so, this attempt to explain 1398 falsely and incorrectly, the error into which he originally fell, appears to me to be of such a character, as greatly to impeach the credit due to his testimony.
But, my lords, he had also stated, "sir John Beresford told me I was to be upon the quarter-deck. I told him I did not wish to be on the quarter-deck; for I had no friends or money to support me on the quarter-deck; that I would wish to leave the service, if leave could be got." Now, my lords, nothing can be more precise and distinct than that. It was a circumstance which must have made a deep impression upon his memory. Observe, my lords, what statement sir John Beresford makes—"Did you ever tell Carrington that he was to be on the quarter-deck, and do you recollect his replying, that he did not wish to be on the quarter-deck, for he had no friends or money to support him on the quarter-deck?" "He never told me any such thing: and after I knew he was to be sir W. Gell's servant, it was very unlikely that I should propose to him to be an officer in the service." Your lordships will understand that explanation in this way—There was never any intention that he should be a midshipman, except for the purpose of transferring him to the This be, that he might quit the service; and therefore his attempt to impose upon your lordships by saying he had the offer distinctly made to him, that he should be on the quarter-deck in the character of an officer, turns out to be false and unfounded. Another question to sir John Beresford is this: "Carrington having informed this House, that he did not go upon the quarter-deck for some time after he joined the Poictiers, was he ever on the quarter-deck of the Poictiers?" "He never was, except when his duty as quarter-master led him there." So your lordships find, that he is distinctly contradicted in all those important facts. This, therefore, is a witness contradicting himself, attempting an explanation which is inconsistent with itself, contradicted by the respectable evidence of sir John Beresford. And yet he is called for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of another man! He may have been a most excellent seaman; but, in the evidence he has given, he has conducted himself in such a way as not to entitle himself to credit—and certainly he does not place himself in such a situation as by his evi- 1399 dence to overturn the evidence of another man.
My lords; there was another person mentioned by Carrington as having been present at this supposed conversation, a person now in this country, and who has been at Mr. Vizard's office, for there the witness states that he saw him. He has of course been examined by Mr. Vizard; but he is not called for the purpose of aiding and supporting the evidence of Carrington. My lords, if the evidence of Carrington had been without blemish, and he had been called for the purpose of contradicting another individual, there might have been a conflict, a balance in their testimony, and you might have said, "If there be another witness to the same fact, and you wish satisfactorily to establish that Majoochi has stated falsely upon that part of the case, it would be your duty to call that second witness;" but when the evidence of Carrington is attacked in the manner in which it has been, and your lordships feel, as I am sure you must do, that no reliance can be placed upon it, then I ask, what excuse can be offered for not calling this other witness, who is stated to have been present at the time? and does not the withholding that witness, under those circumstances, show almost to demonstration that the account given by Carrington is not true? My lords, we threw out, in the course of this inquiry, challenge after challenge to my learned friends, to produce this witness. We were most anxious to have seen him, Francisco Serra would have delighted us; but my learned friends have withheld him, and they have, no doubt, some reasons for not producing him; but not having produced him, relying on the evidence of Carrington to impeach the testimony of Majoochi in this respect, I apprehend your lordships will think that no sufficient impeachment has been made, and that this evidence can have no sufficient operation in the cause.
My lords; a great deal has been said upon the answers which, from time to time, were given by Majoochi to questions which were put to him. "Non mi recordo" was the phrase on our side of the case—a softer and more courtly phrase, "non mi sovviene," has been adopted on the other side. My lords, I beg leave to observe, that when a person is speaking of transactions which took place several years ago, and when his attention is directed to several facts, he may recollect 1400 those facts distinctly, though he may forget other facts of a similar character and description, recalled to his recollection for the first time in a foreign country, put through the medium of an interpreter, subject to all the influence and impression of an assembly constituted like this; and therefore, taking his evidence alone, without any further application, it appears to me, that his not recollecting some facts which were of the same class and character as other facts he had stated, affords no legitimate basis on which you can conclude he has stated that which is false. But, when we look to evidence on the other side, of persons in the highest rank and situation, of whom I wish to speak with the utmost possible respect, and it is a part of my argument to treat them, in this view of the case, with the utmost possible respect—persons of high station and rank—not speaking distinctly, but applying the term, "I do not recollect," to facts of the most striking character, to facts which one must suppose must have made so deep an impression upon their minds that they never could be forgotten—when we find such persons as I have described, of education and reflection, of rank and station, not recollecting, and refusing positively to swear to facts of the character which I have described—what argument can legitimately be urged against Theodore Majoochi, that he, with respect to facts of a comparatively less striking nature, has stated more frequently, in consequence of the length of the cross-examination, that he did not recollect such and such circumstances? My lords, let me not be misapprehended for a moment. I entertain the most unfeigned respect for those individuals to whom I am now alluding. Great allowance is to be made for the infirmity of human nature, for the failure of memory, for the sudden putting of questions on points to which the attention of the party has not been directed; and I am quite sure that when any of those distinguished individuals—need, I say, under the solemnity of an oath—say they did not recollect such and such circumstances, they state that which they knew, felt, and believed to be true. I cast no imputation upon them; but then I say, that the same charity which is shown towards those illustrious individuals ought to be equally applied to the more humble individual whose case we are now considering.
But, my lords, the extraordinary way- 1401 in which this witness was treated—the manner in which he has been run down—not in this House I will not say—but by the public press of the country—the false statements that have been made with respect to his conduct—are matters of serious complaint. He is dragged here to the bar, in consequence of the sudden receipt of letters, and questions were put to him as to a conversation supposed to have taken place with a Mr. Johnson travelling in a coach from Gloucester to Bristol, with a Mr. Hughes, a banker's clerk, with a Mrs. Hughes, his mother, the housekeeper of Mr. Hyatt—he denies that such conversation took place; and, because my learned friend conducting that cross-examination, holds letters in his hand from some or one of those correspondents he has throughout the whole country, it is assumed, for a period of two months, that Majoochi has stated that which was false. But your lordships find, that when the day arrives—when my learned friends might have called those witnesses to your bar, to contradict this evidence, not one of them is produced! Again, my lords, this witness is called up, for the purpose of raising an inference in your lordships minds with respect to his conduct, and the motive by which he is influenced in giving his evidence here. My learned friend, Mr. Brougham, says something about Carlton-house—a house with pillars and sentries; and instead of coming at once to the question, and saying, "Did you go to Carlton-house?"—for the purpose of making an impression upon your lordships' minds, if possible, and upon the mind of the country, it comes out in a circuitous way, that he was at Carlton-house, for that he went to receive dispatches to take abroad, and was introduced to a person whose language he did not understand, and who did not understand the language of the witness!
But, my lords, I wish particularly to direct your particular attention to the questions that were put by my learned friend, with reference to a witness called Camera. "Did you not also make an application five or six times to Camera to be taken back into her royal highness's service?" Softly," he says, "on this point. The first or second time that Camera arrived at Milan, Camera sent his son for me, and Camera told me, and I remember it as if it was now: 'Theodoro Majoochi, do not enter into any service, because her royal highness wishes to take you back, and I 1402 shall pay you.' This conversation must be put down, such as it is, and I beg to be allowed to speak. Camera told me, 'Theodore give me back the certificate of your good service, give me back such paper, and I will tell to her royal highness that you have not taken a further engagement; that you have not been in any further service, and she will pay you for the whole time you have been out of service, and all the damages or losses you have suffered;' and I told Camera—Camera give me back my paper, because I had already given him my paper; because," he says, "rather than go to serve her royal highness, on account of the persons that are about her, I will go and eat grass." My lords, I did suppose that Camera would be called, for the purpose of contradicting this conversation. It does appear, then, that there was some attempt to get back Majoochi into the service of her royal highness: it does appear that there was some desire to get back that certificate which was produced at your lordships bar. But although all these attempts are made; although these multiplied questions are put to the witness, Camera is not called, and we are to take the statement, therefore, that appears upon the Minutes as made by Majoochi as distinct and correct. Camera is here, in the service of her royal highness, and might have been called for the purpose of contradicting this evidence. Why so anxious to get back Majoochi into the service of her royal highness? why this application? your lordships can easily understand, if the case which is now before you is founded in truth your lordships may possibly connect it with that which, in the course of these proceedings, in an early stage of them, showed itself at your lorships bar. But, what I rely upon, my lords, is this—that a false impression has been attempted to be made on your lordships, by putting those multiplied questions, and afterwards not following them up with any contradiction. A false impression has been attempted to be made on the minds of your lordships, and also upon the mind of the country, with respect to the credit to which the testimony of Majoochi is fairly entitled.
My lords; my learned friends, in attacking the evidence of Majoochi, have relied upon another phrase—"Non so." I do not know. "Più no," more no than yes. "Non mi ricordo," I do not remember. And my learned friend, Mr. 1403 Denman, gravely closes his observations upon the credit due to the testimony of Majoochi, by reading that passage, and saying that it was quite sufficient for his purpose. My lords, I beg you to refer to that passage, and see what it imports—"I remember to have received no money when I arrived at Milan—according to my recollection I did not. I am not certain; I am more inclined to think that I did not than that I did; but I do not precisely remember." That, my lords, is the meaning of the passage upon which so much reliance has been placed, and with reference to which, my learned friend concluded the observations he made upon the testimony of Majoochi. My lords, I beg you then to consider, that Majoochi is not substantially contradicted in any thing which is material—in any thing which is not open to fair explanation, to those explanations which have been given by my learned friend the attorney-general—that the attempts to contradict him have altogether failed; and that the general observations upon his testimony are not entitled to much weight.
My lords; I beg leave for a moment now to direct your lordships attention to something which fell from Dr. Lushington with respect to a passage which, upon a former occasion, I had the honour of reading to your lordships. I mean the judgment of sir William Scott in Loveden? Loveden. My lords, in stating that passage to your lordships, I stated distinctly that I had nothing to do with the facts of that case, because they bore no analogy to the present; but I stated the doctrine for the sake of the doctrine itself. And my learned friends would lead your lordships to believe, that it is a doctrine only applicable to that particular case, and arising out of the facts and circumstances of that particular case. My lords, that I utterly deny. I stated that it is the general doctrine; and that the facts of the case were afterwards applied to that general doctrine, and shown, by that intelligent and learned judge, to range themselves with the doctrine so stated; and, if your lordships will allow me to refer to that passage, you will find I am perfectly correct in the view I take of it. The learned judge says, "There is no necessity to state the rule of evidence applicable to this subject, except briefly. The fundamental rule is, that it is not necessary to prove a direct fact of adul- 1404 tery. 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. This is not a matter of technical rule. Upon such subjects the rational and legal conclusion, is the same. "Now, I ask your lordships, with confidence, whether I am not correct in stating, that this is laid down as a general rule of law applicable to subjects of this kind; that the learned judge so stated it, and so intended to state it; and, having done so, applied the facts of the case in such a way as to see whether they fell and ranged themselves within that general rule? To suppose, therefore, with my learned friend, Dr. Lushington, that that is a principle applicable only to a particular case, is to endeavour to mislead your lordships upon a subject so plain that it is impossible that any man, when he comes to read that judgment, can entertain a possible doubt. My learned friend, Dr. Lushington, has stated—and we have had many statements made in the course of this inquiry—he has stated, with great confidence, that there was no instance of a bill of divorce where the female was above forty-five years of age. My lords, it is not on account of the importance of that position, or doctrine, that I now mention it; but for the purpose of showing how rash my learned friends are in all their statements in their conduct of this inquiry. I find, no farther back than the year 1816, a case in the court of Arches, Barlow v. Barlow, in which the age of the female was forty-six, and where the act of adultery had been continued for a period of six years. My lords, I do not state this on account of the importance of it, or because it has any application to the subject generally; but for the purpose of showing how cautious we ought to be in, receiving the confident statements made by my learned friends on the other side— 1405 how careful we ought to be in placing reliance upon the facts which they state, or the decisions to which they refer; and that we ought to be upon our guard—perhaps your lordships ought to be upon your guard, with reference to the statements made on our side, when they are not vouched by authorities; as well as with respect to the statements on the other; but I entreat your lordships not to confound statement with proof. That which is established by evidence, and by an appeal to authority, can alone govern your lordships minds in the decision of this great and important question.
My lords; I have stated, that I do not intend to go into detail on the evidence of Demont, as to what took place at Naples; but, my lords, to the two points in which her evidence is opposed, and by which it is supposed to be destroyed, I shall, for a moment, address myself. She states, that it seemed to her, that her royal highness returned early from the Opera. Sir W. Gell has stated, that the return from the Opera was late; but I beg to direct your attention to the evidence of Mr. Craven in that respect—evidence throughout of a much more cautious and accurate description than that of sir W. Gell: for he says, "I should think it ended rather later than usual." You are to destroy the evidence of Demont, who states that it appeared to her to be earlier than usual, when all that is said by Mr. Craven is, "I should think it ended rather later than usual." My lords, it is most extraordinary to suppose that this conflict of testimony with respect to this particular—the one saying it appeared to be later, and the other that it appeared to her to be earlier than usual—is to lead your lordships to suppose that Demont came here for the purpose of deceiving you.
My lords; the other point to which I allude is, the dress at the masked ball; and I confess I am quite surprised, when I refer to the evidence of Demont, at the observations made upon that subject. Demont does not say, that the dress was indecent. She is asked to "describe the manner in which her royal highness was dressed in this character of the Genius of History?" "She had her arms hare, and her breasts bare, and the drapery in the same way as people represent the Muses, or the Genius of History." Now, my lords, with respect to the testimony on the other side—Sir W. Gell tells you, that there was a considerable expectation 1406 of something that was to appear in the adjoining room—that "the door opened, her royal highness descended, and placed a crown upon the bust of Murat; the door instantly closed,"—he says, "it all passed as quick as I am now describing it."—"It was like a flash of lightning." Mr. Craven says, that he does not remember this dress so well as the other two, because he saw her royal highness only for an instant; but it did not strike him as indecent. So that this individual had; but little opportunity to observe the dress; but, according to Sir W. Gell, "it was like the Curiatius in the British Museum, or like Mr. Hope's Minerva." My lords, those figures have the arms bare. So far it is correct: but then my learned friends lay stress upon the term breasts uncovered." Now, my lords, that is treating Demont most unfairly; because, I beg leave to recall to your lordships recollection what passed with respect to the picture of the Penitent Magdalen at Catania—the expression was, that the "gorge" was uncovered; which was, in the first instance, translated, the breasts were uncovered. Upon which, the other interpreter said, the term "gorge" is equivocal, and may mean either the neck, or the breasts; and she repeated it again, and showed that it came half way down the breasts. My lords, should we not deal uncharitably with a witness if we did not give this the same interpretation in the place to which we are alluding? These are the two striking facts alluded to, for the purpose of overthrowing the testimony of Demont; but, my lords, when we are talking of the evidence falling short of the opening, my learned friend cannot have forgotten the important fact stated by Mr. Williams. It was of great importance to ascertain whether, on the second night of her royal highness's arrival at Naples, she slept in her own bed; and accordingly, Mr. Williams stated, that he should prove, by one of those fortunate accident that sometimes occur, for the purpose of detecting perjury and upholding truth, that her royal highness slept in the small travelling bed she had usually occupied; and that was to be proved in a manner the most distinct and satisfactory—the windows of the apartment were blown open in a storm, a servant was called to shut them, and that servant saw her royal highness in the bed. That was the statement made by Mr. Williams. The servant is not 1407 called—no attempt has been made to establish this fact—and then my learned friends, on the other side, have the grace to complain, that the proof adduced by my learned friend, the attorney-general, does not correspond with the opening which he made before your lordships. Perhaps, my lords, I can explain why that witness is not called. In answer to a question I put in cross-examination to Sicard, it turned out, that it was the night of the arrival at Naples, which was very windy and rainy; and I have reason to believe, that it was on the night of the arrival at Naples that this transaction occurred, which they were desirous to transfer to the second night—a point of time extremely material to the evidence in the present cause.
My lords,; it is impossible, when we are talking of Naples, not to be struck with the extraordinary change between the situation of her royal highness at Naples, surrounded by respectable persons of her own country, or of her adopted country, and her situation at Pesaro. When at Naples, my lords, we find lady Elizabeth Forbes, lady Charlotte Lindsay, sir W. Gell, Mr. K. Craven, and captain Hesse. My lords, at Pesaro we find her surrounded and attended in a most extraordinary manner—we find there, as her lady of honour, and her only lady of honour, madame Oldi, that lady of not very fascinating manners, as described by the earl of Guildford—we find her attended by Schiavini, Cavaletti, Bergami, Vassali, Olivieri, and other persons of a similar description; most of them ex-officers of the army, who had served under Buonaparté. My lords, for the wife of his royal highness the Prince Regent—for the daughter of the duke of Brunswick—this was a most extraordinary and unaccountable selection, for the daughter of the duke of Brunswick to be attended by men who had served in those armies that had overturned the empire of her father—those armies, which had trampled upon, and insulted his country her brother driven from his hereditary dominions, vowing never to sheath his sword until he had avenged his father's death—that brother marching again in the ranks of the allied army, for the purpose of combating this same force, and perishing in that great conflict, which established the liberties and the independance of Europe—these are the individuals whom the daughter of the duke of Brunwick, the sister of the duke of Brunswick, had se- 1408 lected as her associates, at this retreat at Pesaro—withdrawing herself from all the society of the English, she is so surrounded, so supported! My lords, how is this to be explained, can it be in any other mode explained, except by referring to that absolute dominion which had been acquired over her mind, and over her faculties, by that individual whose name has been so often introduced in the course of this inquiry? Could it have been a voluntary choice, unless she had been so influenced, unless (if I may so express myself) she had been so oppressed?
My lords; in order to account for all this, we are told, that she was forced into exile and banishment, and an argument is built upon the supposed truth of that statement. My lords, her leaving this country was, as all the world well knows, her own voluntary act. We all know, that the proposition proceeded from herself. We all know, that it was assented to by the individuals to whom her application was addressed. And yet, my lords, we are told, that this was a banishment, and that all those consequences, and these associations to which I have referred, resulted from that banishment. Good God! my lords, what consequences have been built upon it! In the early stages of this inquiry, appeals were made to the reign of Henry the eighth, and to the cruelties exercised by that monarch. Those appeals, in that stage of the cause, were considered as sufficiently powerful, as sufficiently high, to answer the purposes of this defence. But we had become used to them—the name of Anne Boleyne, the name of Henry the eighth, had ceased to make any impression on our minds. Some higher stimulant had become necessary; and, in the last stage of this inquiry, to my surprise, to my amazement and utter astonishment, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, whom I have long known, whose candor in private life, and courtesey, I have long loved and admired, dared—I say dared, for no other word is applicable to such a subject—to say, that in the history of the ancient and modern world there was no parallel to the usage which her royal highness had experienced, unless in the annals of Rome, in its worst period, under its worst and most infamous sovereign! My lords, the princess of Wales is said, in her sufferings, to stand in the situation of Octavia. How are we to answer this, but by seeing in what situation Octavia did stand, and by seeing the enormous nature 1409 of that charge which has been preferred against the government of this country? Octavia's father was murdered by Nero—Octavia's brother was murdered by Nero, in the presence of Octavia. She, one of the most pure and spotless beings the world ever produced, was charged with having had a criminal intercourse with a slave. My lords, there was not a semblance of truth in the charge—she had never advanced this slave—she had never promoted him to honours—she had never slept in the same room with this slave; but, without evidence, she was sent into banishment. My lords, she was speedily recalled. What then took place? The most infamous of men—a monster who had been employed by Nero to murder his own mother Agrippina, was applied to by Nero to get rid of his wife Octavia: "You must confess that you have had an adulterous intercourse with her, you shall suffer a nominal banishment; but you shall be abundantly rewarded." The deposition was made—it was taken for truth—she was seized—her veins were opened—the blood did not flow sufficiently quick—she was put into hot water, and her head was taken off, and sent to Nero, to glut his savage mind. My lords; what can we say when my learned friend feels himself justified in coming into a court of justice to say, that the case of Octavia bears any thing like a resemblance to the case before your lordships? nay, not only bears any thing like resemblance, but is the only case that can be extracted from the history of ancient and modern times, that can be stated as parallel to it? My lords, I confess when I heard this, my blood chilled with horror. I hardly understood where I was, or from whom it was that this extraordinary language proceeded. But, my lords, what makes it still more extraordinary, my learned friend has not even the merit of invention and novelty in this—the parallel is not his own; for I find in a newspaper which I hold in my hand, published some days before the speech delivered by my learned friend, an advertisement in these terms: "Nero Vindicated!" published by whom, my lords? by a name well known, an individual of whom I know nothing except through the publications he has ushered into the world—" printed by William Hone, Ludgate-hill." And my learned friend condescends to make himself the instrument of such a person as that whom I have described—to prefer such charges 1410 as these in this high and august assembly against the monarch of this country!
My lords; what would my learned friends say, if I, imitating the same course in answering the arguments of my learned friend, who would endeavour to persuade you, from the boldness of her royal highness to come here to meet inquiry, that there can be no foundation for the charges against her—what would your lordships, or what would my learned friends say, if I were to quote the language of Silius, as addressed to the wife of Claudius, when he was endeavouring to stimulate her to an act of treason—"Insontibus innoxia consilia; flagitiis manifestis, subsidium ab audacia petendum." My lords; I should not have dared to make such a quotation, only that I found it in the same page with the passages to which my learned friend has referred. I should not have dared to make any allusion to the history of that period; because I believe, my lords, in my conscience, on both sides, as far as relates to the sovereign and government of the country, and to the illustrious individual who now stands before you accused, there is not the slightest degree of resemblance between them.
My lords; a great deal has been said with respect to the balls at the Barona. It is not my intention to go at large into that part of the subject. I will only observe, that it is most extraordinary, that during her royal highness's residence at the Barona, according to the evidence of lieutenant Hownam, we find no persons of rank and distinction, except Cavaletti always in her suite, except Tamasia the ex-prefect of Como and his wife. I believe no other person is mentioned. This is most extraordinary, my lords, when we recollect the situation of the Barona, at the very gates of Milan. And where it is said, that those very entertainments were given for the purpose of amusing the household, that might once or twice occur; but, my lords, we find no entertainments of any other description—we find those entertainments over and over again recurring. My lords, what could be the reason, that, in that residence, so near to so large and populous a city as that of Milan, the seat of the government of that part of the country, we find her royal highness visited by none of the Italian nobility? I say visited by none of the Italian nobility; because, I find in the evidence of Hownam, no names except those which I have described.
1411 My lords; adverting again shortly to the theatre at the Villa d'Este, to the extraordinary entertainments there exhibited, to the circumstance of her royal highness acting with her own servants, and (according to lieutenant Hownam), dancing on the stage in the presence of two hundred people, with her own servants, it does appear to me, my lords, that that is an indication of something like degradation, and no inconsiderable degradation, from the rank and station which she filled.
My lords; again with respect to what has been said of the exhibitions of Mahomet, extraordinary is the mode in which the evidence on the part of the bill is met on the other side. A gentleman of the name of Sharpe is called, and he tells you, that he was upon one occasion present at a dance in the east, and that there was nothing indecent or improper in that dance, it being exhibited in the government-house at Calcutta before the governor-general, the governor's lady and other persons of distinction; and your lordships are expected gravely to infer from that circumstance, that there could be nothing indecent or improper in the exhibitions of Mahomet! Sir W. Gell is asked to give some general description of the dance which prevailed in the south of Europe. He says, there is nothing indecent in them, that the Spanish bolero has been exhibited on our stage, and that all mankind may therefore judge for themselves. But he describes that dance as in part partaking of amorous attitudes and being of an amorous character. My lords, does not every body feel and know that where a dance is of that character and description, it may assume all the variety of shades from that which is the extreme of innocence and purity, to that which is the extremity of infamy and licentiousness? The very description of it, the calling it an amorous dance, leads at once to that conclusion, and that according to the occasion, according to the persons who were present and the circumstances under which it was exhibited, it will assume the more or less of the one or the other character. My lords, Bourgoing, in his Travels in Spain, speaking of the fandango and the bolero, expresses himself in these terms—"It is different according to the places where it is practised—when a few persons assembled together, shake off all scruples, the meaning of the dance is then so marked, that voluptuousness assails the mind at every 1412 avenue; its excitements cause the heart of the modest youth to palpitate with desire, and reanimate the deadened sense of age. It is impossible not to confess with a blush, that these scenes are to the real combats of the Paphian queen, what our military evolutions in peace are to the real display of the art of war." My lords, I mention this as an illustration of what I am stating, and, when sir W. Gell, who was never present at those exhibitions of Mahomet, merely describes the Spanish bolero as assuming only one character and that character applicable to all occasions, he is misleading and deceiving your lordships.
But, my lords, what is the distinct and positive evidence in this case? It is supposed that the evidence of Birollo is different from the evidence of Oggioni, by whom he was afterwards followed. Birollo says, "he made a roll to represent something. I do not know how to call it decently." I would ask your lordships then, in what respect does the evidence of Birollo differ from the evidence of Oggioni? With respect to the evidence of Majoochi, your lordships are not to form your opinion merely from what appears upon the printed Minutes—you saw his exhibition and can conclude what he meant to represent. And, upon the other side, we have only the evidence of lieut. Hownam, that upon some occasions he saw this dance, and that upon those occasions there was nothing more indelicate than in the Spanish bolero. My lords, is there any balance or conflict of evidence in this case? Can my learned friends say they have met us at all? The exhibition was performed in the presence of many servants of her royal highness at the time when her royal highness was also present—why are not those servants called for the purpose of contradicting him? Why rely upon exhibitions at another time and on other occasions? I have stated, that this dance might assume different shades of character according to the circumstances under which it was exhibited; and therefore, because lieut. Hownam says, that upon those occasions on which he saw it, there was nothing indecent, is that to be taken, in common understanding and common apprehension, as a contradiction of three witnesses who have been adduced with respect to this fact on the part of the bill?
My lords; my learned friends have slightly touched on the evidence with 1413 respect to the transactions at the Villa d'Este. Your lordships will recollect, among other circumstances, the Queen being driven out in a carriage called a padovanello by Bergami, and sitting upon his knee. How is that met? Have they called any witness to disprove that fact? So far from it, though my learned friend has attempted to give some evidence for the purpose of contesting it, that evidence is of a most singular character. Vassali is called for the purpose of contradicting that fact—Vassali never having lived as a servant at the Villa d'Este. So that, instead of calling persons who were at the Villa d'Este to contradict facts which passed there, he calls a person who came into the service after she had left that place!
My lords; at the time when we proved that, from time to time, her royal highness used to go out in a small canoe with Bergami, no other person being present, that fact was contested; but lord Guildford himself gave evidence as to that fact, and confirmed, beyond the possibility of doubt, the evidence which was given on the part of the bill. Your lordships will find the evidence of Galdini extremely material. Dr. Lushington contented himself with making observations upon the absurdity of the story—this man had gone up stairs—had suddenly opened the door—had seen her royal highness and Bergami sitting on a chair or sofa, Bergami having his hand round the neck of her royal highness, and on one of her breasts—Bergami jumped up, and asked him, what he did there; and because the witness says, "I observed this only for a moment," my learned friends would infer that the whole story was a fable. Now, I beg to direct your attention to the first fact which came out in cross-examination. My learned friend, Mr. Tindal, asks, "Whom did you first inform of what you knew upon this subject?" "The first time I mentioned it to the son of the factor on the same day." Now, what is there improbable in this witness's story? But, if it be untrue, my learned friend had the means of contradicting it—the fattore has been called here as a witness; his son might have been called here to disprove this statement made by Galdini—and, will your lordships, when my learned friends had the power of disproving the statement of the witness, on these vague and general observations of Dr. Lushington, carrying 1414 no weight with them, say that this evidence is to be discarded? And, if it is not to be discarded, can any thing be more strong, more striking, and more conclusive than the facts which he states?
My lords; another witness upon whom my learned friend has made no comment, is Galli. He was a waiter at the inn at Barlisina, and he says, "I saw them at dinner. Her royal highness and Bergami sitting near each other."—"What was their conduct towards each other?" "At the dinner they paid compliments to each other, and I saw that they took some delicate morsel, and offered to each other. The baron took something out of his plate and offered it to her royal highness. Then her royal highness took something out of her own, and gave it to the baron. He then says, that the princess and Bergami were left alone—that they remained there for half an hour—that he came suddenly into the room, and saw them kissing each other." Now, my lords, you will find in the cross-examination that abundant materials were furnished for the contradiction of this witness. He is asked, who was present upon the occasion. "Were there not eight or ten persons in the company of the princess?" "There were."—"Do you know any of them?" "Her two dames d'honneur—there was the daughter and the mother of the baron, there was a servant, professor Mocatti,—captain Vassali, and an Englishman whom I did not know—there were some other persons, but whom I do not know." So that the evidence of Galli relates to a transaction that took place in the presence of all those persons, who at that time were dining with her royal highness, and therefore every thing that he has said might have been contradicted. Are your lordships, then, to reject this evidence, only because it is the evidence of the waiter at the inn at Barlisina, after my learned friend's cross-examination for the purpose of knowing who were present upon the occasion? When it is ascertained that so many persons were spectators of the transaction, will you not require that some of those persons shall be called to contradict this witness? And, if my learned friends will not pursue that course, will you be disposed to reject this evidence, which is of the same character and description as the other evidence to which I have directed the attention of your lordships.
My lords; there is another fact, the 1415 statement of the busts at the Villa Brandi—a person came to take a bust of her royal highness, and another of Bergami, and those two busts, according to the evidence of Sacchi, were placed in the room of Bergami. My lords, any witness at Pesaro might have contradicted that fact, and your lordships see what is the inference to be drawn from this. At the Villa d'Este you find them living together in the utmost degree of familiarity, walking arm in arm, like persons in the relative situation of husband and wife, going out in a canoe together, sitting on a bench, Bergami getting up to go away, and her royal highness pulling him down by the coat, Bergami kissing her royal highness, and a variety of other particulars, to which my learned friends have not attempted to give any answer. But, that I may not be tedious,—I will leave this part of the case, and direct your lordships attention, once more, to one remarkable fact—I mean, the transactions at Catania.
Your lordships will recollect, that at Catania, Demont and Mariette Bron, slept in a room with Bergami's room on the one side, and the room of her royal highness on the other—that Bergami occupied the room which belonged to the countess Oldi; but she, for the accommodation of Bergami, was removed into the room of her royal highness, and the little Victorine also slept in the same room. Your lordships have it positively sworn by Demont, that when she came up to bed, she found that her royal highness had already retired; that she was not called to undress, according to her usual practice, the room door being closed. In the middle of the night, she hears the child crying "mama," the countess Oldi endeavouring to pacify her. That is a most striking circumstance.
Mr. Solicitor General.—It is most positively sworn to be the same night. I beg leave, then, to recall your recollection to what took place in the morning. The usual time for retiring from that apartment was nine o'clock. Demont remained till ten; and before she retired, her royal highness came out of the room occupied by Bergami, with her two pillows, for the purpose of passing to her own room. The moment she saw Demont, she started, said nothing, but passed on. Now, my lords, if that circumstance be true, can any person for a 1416 moment contend, that that is not clear and distinct evidence of an adulterous connexion having taken place during that night? But, my lords, how is this case to be opposed? She is asked, in the first instance, whether her sister was present. She says, she does not recollect positively, but as far as she does recollect, her sister was present at the time. But, my learned friends say, that as she does not swear positively that Mariette, her sister, was present at that time, Mariette cannot contradict her, and therefore it is unnecessary to call her for that purpose. But, unfortunately for my learned friends, that deficiency has been supplied by Mr. Brougham's own statement. Let us advert to what is stated by my learned friend: he says "Let me remind your lordships of the scene that is said to have taken place at Catania"—and then, after relating the particulars of the transaction, he says, "I am told that the means are left in my power of contradicting this statement by calling Mariette;" and then, after going into a long argument, for the purpose of showing it is not necessary for him to call Mariette, he concludes with these words: "Her majesty, however, has hitherto seen no reason to part with a faithful servant, no ground of suspicion arising against her conduct; she has as yet discovered nothing to her prejudice; we shall, therefore, present her before your lordships, and you will have an opportunity of hearing her account of those transactions; but it is gratuitous on our part." So that it is stated upon the other side, that Mariette Bron was in a situation to speak distinctly to this transaction; and if there be any defect upon the Minutes, that defect is abundantly supplied by this gratuitous admission. I ask your lordships then, why, in pursuance of this pledge, Mariette is not called, for the purpose of contradicting Demont? Is there any satisfactory reason for withholding the testimony of this witness? She is spoken of by my learned friend, in the highest possible terms. The story which she has to tell, must, of course, be of the most simple description. What danger can there be in placing her at your lordships bar? And, my lords, if Demont has vouched her—if she is not called for the purpose of contradicting Demont—is it possible, that you can entertain a doubt, with respect to the confidence you ought to place in the story Demont has told? It is not the testi- 1417 mony, however, of Mariette Bron only, that my learned friends might command upon this occasion. Madame Oldi might have proved, that her royal highness was not, during the whole of that night, out of the room she occupied in conjunction with her. The story of Demont might have been disproved by two distinct witnesses, neither of whom has my learned friend ventured to produce; and yet they call upon you confidently to disbelieve the story told by Demont. Have not my learned friends, then, admitted, by their own conduct, that the story cannot be impeached? The setting up these flimsy excuses is the strongest possible corroboration of the truth of the story told by her. My lords, are you to decide upon the evidence given you? Are you to decide not only upon that evidence which we laid before you, but which my learned friends might lay before you, and which they withheld from you? Is this a legitimate course to pursue in endeavouring to arrive at the truth? If it be so—never, I apprehend, was a case more strongly established by the evidence distinctly given on the one side, and the evidence withheld and not called on the other, than the case at Catania; and, that an adulterous intercourse took place between these parties on that night, no reasonable man can entertain a particle of doubt.
My lords; there is another case which has already been alluded to—I mean the case at Turin. Your lordships remember that Birollo, of whose character there has been no impeachment, states, that he went accidentally through the room of Bergami into the room of the countess Oldi, and that he saw Bergami come out of the bed-room of her royal highness, in his night-gown, with his drawers and his stockings, and no other part of his dress, and that the bed of Bergami was not deranged. My lords, the countess Oldi might have been called for the purpose of contradicting this evidence. Am I to be continually recurring to that same observation? There is scarcely a part of this case which might not have been contradicted by the countess Oldi. According to the case we set up, the countess Oldi entered into the service of her royal highness for the purpose of assisting in this correspondence which was carried on—she was present during the whole course of this transaction—she was in such a position, that almost every case 1418 might, if false, have been disproved by this individual—and yet she has been throughout withheld!
My lords; I pass to the case at Carlsruhe. Upon that I shall make a very few observations, because it has been already commented upon so fully by the attorney-general. But, look at that case, and see how it presents itself to your observation. Some weeks have now elapsed since Barbara Kress gave her evidence. My learned friends have had their agents upon the spot at Carlsruhe—they have, therefore had every opportunity to inquire into the character of that female. They might have impeached that character, if it did not stand above all impeachment. After, therefore all those opportunities have been in the power of my learned friends, no attempt is made to impeach her character. She swears positively and distinctly to the fact, that she saw her royal highness in the bed-room of Bergami, sitting on the bed in the manner so often described. Could she be mistaken in the person of her royal highness? As if for the purpose of guarding against that inference, at the very moment at which Kress was giving her evidence, her majesty was sitting before her, in the chair placed in your lordships house for her reception. She swore positively it was her majesty; and at a particular part of the evidence her majesty withdrew. Now, what is the answer attempted to be given to this on the other side? It is attempted to be said, that this might be the countess Oldi. My lords, if it is so surmised, the countess Oldi might have proved the fact; and, not proving the fact, it is perfectly clear that she could not have mistaken her royal highness for the countess Oldi. What other individual could it possibly have been? But we need not resort to conjectures of that kind; for the witness swears positively that it was her royal highness.
But, my lords, what is the answer attempted to be given to the case? Count Vassali is called, and he tells you, with a precision which is absolutely miraculous and incredible, after a lapse of three years, where her royal highness dined, where she supped, how she passed the intervals between dinner and supper, upon every day during her residence at Carlsruhe. My lords, this is a most extraordinary proof of memory of that individual. With respect to another place, almost as remarkable, I mean Munich, he cannot give 1419 an account where she dined or supped on any one day during that whole period. And your lordships will find, in adverting to the testimony of Mr. Hownam, in speaking of the residence at Carlsruhe he says, that she supped out mostly; not supporting the testimony of Vassali, who says, she passed every evening absent from her own residence. My lords, is it possible to put the evidence of Vassali in contrast, in opposition, to the evidence of Barbara Kress? And after all, my lords, who is count Vassali? He is at present a pensioner in the service of her royal highness—he is the friend of Bergami—he is the person actively employed in collecting the witnesses—he is the individual employed to indemnify them—he it is that receives large sums of money for that purpose—he is identified, actively engaged, in this cause, and in the defence: and has every interest to promote it to the utmost extremity of his power. I would ask your lordships, then with confidence, whether you would put the evidence of this witness, with respect to facts of this description, in opposition to the distinct evidence of Kress? But I beg leave to recall to your recollection the circumstance that Bergami, in consequence of indisposition, retired from the dinner at the grand duke's between four and five in the afternoon. It is admitted that her royal highness returned to the inn about seven on the same evening; but Vassali says that which is utterly incredible, that which must be false—that after she came into the saloon at the inn, she never left it during the whole time that she remained at the inn, but stayed there, retiring for no purpose whatever. Can your lordships believe that circumstance? But, my lords, there is another fact of the most decisive kind. I mean the cloak of her royal highness found in the bed, delivered to one of her servants, afterwards seen worn by her royal highness; and no explanation of that circumstance is given of that most extraordinary fact. My lords, these two cases, then, reflect light upon each other—they mutually support and assist each other—and, if you believe the latter fact, which is not contradicted, what a strong confirmation does it give to the previous testimony of Kress! My lords, judging upon this case according to the ordinary rules by which evidence is sifted and examined, I apprehend you can entertain no serious doubt with respect to it. It is said, indeed, that my learned 1420 friends have suffered greatly in consequence of the absence of baron d'Ende. My lords, that is their statement on the other side, and might be met by contradictory statement on ours. I do not believe that my learned friends have suffered from the absence of that individual; but I have as much right to say that, as my learned friends on the other side have to say, that if that individual had appeared, he would at all have assisted the case of my learned friends. But, my lords, you are to decide this case, not on evidence which cannot appear at your lordships bar, but upon that evidence which is before you; and, judging upon the evidence before you, it appears to me, that a very strong, clear, and distinct case is made out with respect to the conduct of Bergami and her royal highness at Carlsruhe; so as to lead to the inference to which the other facts of this case lead, namely, that of a criminal intercourse having taken place between them.
My lords; some observations have been made on the conduct of an individual at Carlsruhe, but which appear to me utterly destitute of foundation, I mean the conduct of baron Grimm. Baron Grimm was occupying rooms in that hotel; for the purpose of accommodating her royal highness, he gave up those rooms, as every gentleman would do, to the accommodation of her royal highness. Afterwards, when her royal highness went away, he returned to the apartment with his friend; and then the witness represents him as running about in the apartments—that is evidently going from one room to another; as any individual would almost of necessity have done under the circumstances; and, upon the phrase "running about," my learned friends have built up a fanciful structure, as if baron Grimm had been busy in carrying on some secret intrigue and conspiracy against her royal highness.
My lords; it is impossible that I should leave this case without saying something upon the alleged conspiracy to suborn witnesses; upon which my learned friends have laid so much reliance, in the conduct of this cause. They were going straight on, for the purpose of disproving our case—they had in the outset called lieut. Flinn for the purpose of disproving our case on board the polacre, and had called lieut. Hownam for the same purpose. We considered that they were marching right on, and that they meant 1421 to call the countess Oldi, and Mariette, and other persons in her royal highness's service. We were prepared to meet them. But, all at once, not satisfied with the evidence of lieut. Hownam—feeling that it had been injurious to the cause it was intended to defend—all at once they turned round, and set up a pretended conspiracy, to suborn witnesses to give evidence against the Queen, and, for a whole week, attempts were made, by my learned friends of the most extraordinary kind, to introduce that which they themselves must have known was not evidence in the cause—labouring point after point—charging us with relying on technical distinctions, whereas our distinctions were of the most solid and substantial character—endeavouring in every way to introduce, for the purpose of impression, that which every lawyer must have known not to be evidence, merely for the purpose of creating a prejudice in the cause. And at last, my lords, compelled to abandon this charge of conspiracy, compelled to allow they had not been able to substantiate this charge, obliged to give it up, showing, in the first place, that they placed no reliance upon it, and after a fruitless attempt, compelled to abandon it altogether.
But, my lords, in the course of this proceeding, it is supposed to have been discovered that Restelli was absent. Why, my lords, as far back as the 18th of September it was publicly announced throughout the country, that Restelli was not here. It had been stated in another place in distinct terms.* It is almost impossible to suppose that my learned friends had not received their intelligence from their correspondents at Milan. But my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, turning round, with an admirable simplicity, to the attorney-general, says, "Mr. Attorney, will you put Restelli to the bar?" with all that gravity which he knows how to assume, "will you put Restelli to the bar?" The attorney-general refused to give any answer to a question put personally to himself—it was put through your lordships, and the attorney-general said, Restelli was not in the country. Then, my lords, this smothered fire broke forth—then the most powerful appeals were made to your lordships judgment. Restelli, according to the expression used by my learned friend, bad been "spirited
*See p. 70 of the present Volume.1422 away" that he might not be again examined as a witness, and in order that he might not be indicted for the perjury he was supposed to have committed. My lords, every explanation which could be given was given. Mr. Powell was called to your lordships bar. He was sifted, and he said, "true it is, I sent away Restelli, but with positive injunctions to return here by the 3rd of October. I did not mean to subtract him as an evidence in the cause. I did not send him with an improper motive, but to get some documents authenticated, and to give confidence to the families of those witnesses residing here, in consequence of the affair at Dover." My lords, there were some persons who were disposed to question the correctness of this statement made by Mr. Powell, and an application was made to him to produce, not only the copies of his own letters, but the letters he had received from colonel Browne in the course of this transaction. He submitted to your lordships decision upon the point. My lords, I do not complain that, under the particular circumstances of this case, you thought it right that those letters should be produced—they were produced, and they confirm, beyond the possibility of doubt, the previous statement which had been made by Mr. Powell—made at a time when Mr. Powell could not, by possibility, suppose that those letters could ever be required; because, the very first letter that was sent by Mr. Powell upon that subject, desired that he might be back by the 3rd of October. The whole correspondence shows, that he was most anxious for his return, and that Restelli never was subtracted for the purpose of preventing his being heard as a witness at your lordships bar, or for the purpose of preventing any proceeding against him. It is impossible to read that correspondence* and not to be satisfied of the good faith of Mr. Powell in that transaction.But, my lords, it is supposed there is some inconsistency in the statement made by Mr. Powell; and my learned friend, referring to the answer of Mr. Powell, says, "Have you had any communication which enables you to state whether it is probable that Restelli will soon again be in England?" "I have every reason to believe that he will soon be in England, because the most positive directions have been sent that he should be sent over.
*See the Correspondence at p. 968.1423 —"When were those directions sent?" "They have been sent two or three times; the last directions were sent on Saturday or Sunday, the most positive directions. I have learned that Restelli had, for some days, been violently ill, and confined to his bed by a fever, having been blooded and attended by some medical person. My learned friend supposed there was some concealment on the part of Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell told you, he had every reason to expect he would soon return; and at the time he told you, he expected he would soon return. He told you all the circumstances of the situation in which Restelli stood, and the impediments which might be opposed to that return; and yet my learned friend supposes there was some attempt at imposition on the part of Mr. Powell. Nothing was withheld—nothing was concealed from your lordships; and it is the best vindication of the character and conduct of Mr. Powell, that, not supposing it possible those letters ever would be produced, he gives his evidence at your lordships bar; and on referring to those letters in all the main and material facts of the case, namely, as to the motive for sending away Restelli, and the direction for his immediate return, he is confirmed in every part of the correspondence. So much, my lords, with respect to the imputations which have been cast upon that gentleman.But, my lords, my learned friend again says, "What are those documents you expected him to bring back?" and my learned friend would endeavour to lead you to believe, that there were no other documents intended to have been brought back by Restelli, and that this statement made by Mr. Powell is not borne out by the fact. I request your lordships again to refer to the correspondence, and you will find that those documents are distinctly referred to in the correspondence: and when my learned friends ask us, how we could make use of any documents in this stage of the cause, cannot they suppose it possible that there may be documents connected with the previous situation of Bergami, that might have been material in cross-examining the witnesses who might be called to support the character of that individual? When my learned friends ask us, what is the nature of these documents? I shall not more distinctly state to your lordships their character, but my learned friends may conceive they may be of such a character, as 1424 to the situation of Bergami at Lodi in the prison there, as to be material in conducting the cross-examination of those who came to speak to the good character and conduct of that individual.
My lords; another individual has been attacked—I mean colonel Browne; and he has been attacked on such evidence as renders it astonishing to my mind that any persons could, on such testimony, attempt to raise a charge against a gallant and honourable man. A person of the name of Omati is produced, the travelling companion of count Vassali, for the purpose of fixing a taint on the character and conduct of colonel Browne. My lords, who is Omati, and in what light does he present himself to your lordships? My learned friends even endeavour to throw a shield over the character of that individual. My learned friend, Mr. Wilde, who re-examined him, re-examined him as to his age—he was only two-and-twenty years of age—it is therefore to be supposed that he was a youth, seduced by the wicked contrivance of Vimercati and of colonel Browne. My lords, look at the sort of evidence he has given—he says, "I was met by a person by accident in the street, whom I had never seen before."
Mr. Solicitor General.—I say, he tells us so in his cross-examination: "Did you meet him by accident?" "By accident. I did not know him; he stopped me." When he told you to go to Vimercati, you being the servant of Codazzi, did you not ask him what his name was, and who he was?" "I asked him, and he told me that it was no business of mine."—"Did you meet him by accident on the second day?"—"Yes." And this man whom he did not know, whom he had thus met by accident the second time, persuades him to go to Vimercati. My lords, he goes to Vimercati, and according to his account, Vimercati persuades him to deliver to him papers belonging to her royal highness. He pays him for those papers, and he goes on delivering successive parcels of papers till the month of November in the same year. My lords, he says, that at the end of that year, or at the commencement of the next, he repented of what he had done; he had been seduced by those persons to hand over those papers, and to betray the confidence of his employer; for he describes 1425 himself as the confidential clerk of his master. He is then asked, Did he not, upon this repentance, endeavour to repair the wrong, by telling his master what had taken place? No. But though he repented of this, we find him in the month of March going for the purpose of obtaining further payment from Vimercati as the reward of his treachery; and again, in July, he delivers a list of the witnesses to a person sent by Vimercati.
My learned friend says, "Oh! you know about this list, or how could you ask to it." Why, my lords, we knew nothing of the fact. We asked, whether he had delivered more papers; he said he had. What did they consist of? A list of witnesses. And, my learned friend would lead you to suppose, that because, by a series of questions, we obtained the result that this list of witnesses was delivered, we had a previous knowledge of the fact of this list being delivered!
My lords; it is said, colonel Browne must have known, that Omati was to be called as a witness, and ought therefore to be here to confront him; and my learned friend refers to the instructions for cross-examination lying before us in confirmation, as he says, of the truth of that statement. My lords, colonel Browne had reason to believe that this man was sent to him in concert with Codazzi; and therefore it was, that he thought it necessary to communicate in a letter, long ago, the whole history of this proceeding. And when, to our astonishment, we found, that Omati was produced as a witness, we referred instantly to the letter of colonel Browne, and from that letter obtained the materials for cross-examination.
My lords; is it upon evidence of this description, upon the testimony of a witness describing himself as this witness has, that you are to impeach the character of this gallant officer? "Oh," we are to be told, "you are to say nothing as to the character of this individual, it is quite nauseous to hear the praises of the persons composing the Milan commission." On the other side, the Milan commission are, day after day, attacked in the harshest terms without stint or limit; but, if any person gives his testimony to the characters of the individuals thus assailed, we are told, that it is incorrect and improper. My lords, no evidence has been given to impeach any individual connected with this Milan commission, that, in my mind, can make the slightest impression upon 1426 your lordships. There is nothing to show that, throughout the whole of this trans, action, they have not conducted themselves with the utmost integrity, with the strictest purity and propriety. My lords, when I say connected with this Milan commission, do not let me be understood to go so far as to say, that all the subordinate persons have, in every instance, conducted themselves with propriety: this, however, I will say, that there is not the slightest evidence to satisfy your lordships, that any one of the Milan Commissioners has had any knowledge of any improper conduct, much less been privy to any improper conduct, much less given the sanction of his name and character to any improper conduct, proceeding from any individual whatever.
My lords; my learned friends complain (and they have complained throughout), of the difficulties with which they have had to contend throughout this defence—they complain that the charge itself was not, in the first instance, explained with sufficient distinctness, and that they were not furnished with a list of the witnesses. My lords, the only case in which, according to the law of England, a party is entitled, before becomes to answer a charge, to a copy of that charge, and to the names of the witnesses by whom the charge is to be substantiated, is the case of high treason. My lords, here my learned friends not only have had a copy of the charge; they not only have had a list of the witnesses; but they have had a copy of all the evidence to which those witnesses had deposed; and, after a long interval, an interval named by themselves, with all this previous information, they come here for the purpose of conducting the defence. But my learned friend says, how could we cross-examine for the purpose of meeting this charge, persons of whom we knew nothing? In opposition, I believe, to a previous determination of your lordships, whenever my learned friend suggested, that the cross-examination of any particular witness ought to be renewed, that witness has been again placed at your lordships' bar, for that purpose; and after a pledge given, I think by Mr. Brougham, that if Majoochi was placed at your lordships' bar for the purpose of being cross-examined the second time, he would require it no further—after that, on two distinct occasions, that individual was called for the purpose of undergoing a further cross-examination. 1427 My learned friends, therefore, have suffered nothing by not having the materials for cross-examination; because, if there was any original defect, your lordships have abundantly supplied it, by the indulgence you have given throughout this inquiry. Never did an individual accused, stand in a situation more favourable for conducting her defence, than her royal highness has done. My lords, do I lament that? I rejoice at it. When a charge of this kind is brought against the Queen of Great Britain, I would desire that every facility, without limit, should be afforded to her for the establishing of her innocence. We must not, my lords, in a case of this kind, proceed upon conjecture—we must not, my lords, in a case of this kind, proceed upon loose suspicion—the case must be established, and established beyond the possibility of doubt, before we have a foundation upon which we can proceed to enact a bill of the character and description of that now before your lordships; and therefore it is that I rejoice, that every indulgence has been afforded to her majesty in the conduct of this defence, that nothing has been withheld, that was calculated, in the slightest degree, to elicit the truth. It is for your lordships, after all these opportunities have been afforded to her majesty, to consider the mass of evidence that has been adduced, and to say, whether or not these charges are substantially made out against her.
My lords; we now take our leave of this great case; and, long and tedious, and laborious and painful as this investigation has been, the courtesy and kindness, and indulgence which we have experienced from your lordships, has, in no inconsiderable degree, assuaged and mitigated our toils. And, my lords, in retiring from your lordships' bar, we should be guilty of the greatest ingratitude, if we did not make to your lordships our acknowledgments, for the kindness which we have experienced at your hands. Never came a cause into a court of justice, in which there was so much anxiety, with respect to every step in its progress, and with respect to its final result, as the present. Every passion has been successively appealed to, in the conduct of this defence, by my learned friends on the other side. They have well and faithfully discharged their duty to their illustrious client. We make no complaint of their conduct. We rejoice to see such talents 1428 exercised in the defence of a Queen of England. My lords, my learned friends have endeavoured to awaken successively, all the sympathies, and all the passions of your nature. They have even appealed to the basest of all passions, the passion of fear. In this high and august assembly, the élite, if I may so express myself, of a nation renowned for its firmness and intrepidity, my learned friends have appealed to the passion of fear. You are told by one of my learned friends, that if you pass this bill into a law, you will commit an act of suicide. Another of my learned friends tells you, that you are to pass the bill at your peril—these words hung upon, the lips of my learned friend who now stands near me, for a time sufficiently long to be understood; and they were afterwards affectedly withdrawn. My lords, I am astonished that such topics should have been addressed to your lordships. They can only have an injurious effect upon the individuals from whom they proceed. I know, my lords, that you will not dare to do any thing which is unjust—at the same time, I know, that what justice requires, you will do, without regard to any personal consideration that may affect yourselves. But, my lords, it is not in this place alone, that these arts have been resorted to—the same course has been pursued out of doors; the same threats have been held out; and every attempt has been made to over-awe and intimidate the decision of your lordships. Even the name of her majesty herself has been profaned for that purpose. In her name, but undoubtedly without her sanction, and her concurrence, attacks of the most direct nature have been made against all that is sacred and venerable in this empire—against our constitution—against the sovereign—against the hierarchy—against all orders of the state. My lords, this could not proceed from her majesty. Her name must have been made use of by persons aiming, under the sanction and shield of that name, at some dark and pernicious designs. If we could suppose it, my lords, we must imagine that her majesty was aiming at the overthrow of the government and constitution of the country—
——dum Capitolio,Regina dementes ruinas,Funus et imperio parabat—might, in that case, become a new era with our posterity. My lords, I acquit her majesty of having had any concern 1429 in the transactions to which I allude; and I hope that, from this moment, these proceedings will for ever terminate.My lords; if in looking at this evidence, although you should have the strongest possible conviction on your minds, that the Queen is guilty of the charges which are imputed to her in this bill, but you should think that, in strict legal evidence, there is not sufficient to lay a foundation, on which you can safely act; in that case, and in that case only, you will adopt the language suggested by my honourable and learned friend, Mr. Denman, and say, "Go thy way, and sin no more." But, my lords, if you are satisfied, bending your minds earnestly to the contemplation of that evidence, looking at it with that calmness, and that dispassionate feeling with which, as judges, you ought to contemplate it; that the case is made out so strongly, so fully, and in a manner so satisfactory as to leave no real doubt upon your lordships minds, then, my lords, knowing what I do of the tribunal I am now addressing, I am sure you will pronounce your decision upon this momentous question, with that firmness which is consonant to your high exalted station.
§ After a short pause,
Mr. Broughamsaid, that he wished to call their lordships attention to a matter which he mentioned a day or two ago. He had on that occasion stated, that some papers of importance had just reached him, which he had at once felt it his duty to lay before their lordships; indeed, he felt it would be a dereliction of duty in him to allow their lordships to go to judgment without puling them in possession of these papers. It appeared to him, that there were two points of view in which such evidence was admissible. He was certain that in any ordinary case, no judge would hold that, before final judgment was given, it was too late for a defendant to obtain justice; he was convinced that such evidence as that which he was about to offer, would be received in the courts below, open certainly to cross-examination, to a rebutter, and to all the comments of the prosecutor. But, was it not more necessary that such evidence should be received in such a case as this? He would call their lordships' attention to the reasons, why it was material that this evidence should be received. First, it brought home distinctly 1430 and unequivocally to Francis Baron Ompteda, the charge of conspiracy to suborn witnesses against her majesty. His learned friends had complained that much had been said, but little proved, on this part of the case. Now, he was about to give evidence that, during the whole of the prosecution, this Ompteda was amongst the most active, if not the most active, that he was the least scrupulous, though it would not be easy to decide, where so little scrupulousness had been observed, who the least scrupulous person was; but at least it went to show that Ompteda was that man among the agents of the commission, who took the most discreditable means of obtaining evidence against the Queen. The letters to which he alluded, went to show that Ompteda had employed one of the police, an agent of the government at Pesaro, and whom he was able to procure through the interference of that government, for the purpose of corrupting her majesty's servants, mentioned by name, to give evidence against her. From those letters, it would appear, that Ompteda was the person who carried on the correspondence between Demont and her sister, Mariette; that it was he who conveyed the letters to Mariette, after Demont had quitted her royal highness's service, in which she was, in the mean time, the means of continuing her sister. He would show that even after Demont had been examined, and as it were in the toils of this commission, Ompteda had conveyed letters from her to her sister Mariette; he would show that this Ompteda—this Hanoverian minister—this agent of count Munster—this second chief in that foreign diplomacy to which their lordships owed the task of sifting this case; he would show them, that this man had mentioned not only Mariette, but Hieronimus, as persons whom he had in his eye. That he stated in the letter, "Have the goodness to tell in your opinion of it, as well as of the dispositions of M. Olivieri towards the princess, whose service he quits. What opinion is to be formed of Vassali? I learn, likewise, that several new Roman servants have been received, whose names I should be curious to know,"—for what purpose he would leave it to their lordships to decide; and to all this was added, the promise of a rouleau of Louis, ready to he given to induce the party applied to, to comply. He conceived the production of those let- 1431 ters would be a good answer to the question of the attorney-general, why Hieronimus and Mariette were not brought for-ward as witnesses. In this transaction he believed the English ministry were alien, but the Hanoverian ministers were certainly parties to it.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he objected to his learned friend's proceeding further. Had he the talent, eloquence, or nerve of his learned friend, he might well turn round, and with a bursting exclamation say, "And now, my lords, I ask whether you are a court of justice?" If his learned friend's object was merely to make a speech, he would have avoided, not only the letters, but all comments on what had been said in reply. The letters had been produced when he was in the course of his reply, land when his learned friend knew that they could not be received in evidence. If the letters were of importance to the defence, their lordships might perhaps be inclined to relax the strict rules of evidence in favour of the accused, but he denied that it could be done in this case. The object was, to establish the proposed agency, and then to show the conduct of the party under that agency. But the declaration of the party could not be received to prove this, neither could the written declaration of such agent. His learned friend had accused baron Ompteda; and now it turned out, that the accusation was without proof; for no proof was attempted to be offered against Ompteda until this moment. It was not until he had complained of this accusation without proof, that the letters in question had found their way into the hands of his learned friend. Then it was that his learned friend came forward and said, "Oh, I have got letters of the greatest importance, which I wish to lay before your lordships." He contended that those letters could not be received. His learned friend had ingeniously contrived to state the contents of the letters, but he had not said to whom they were addressed, nor had he mentioned their dates.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords; I have not the slightest objection to do both. I will read the letters throughout, if my learned friend wishes.
The Attorney Generaladmired the adroitness of his learned friend. He had contrived to give the contents of the letters in his own way; but he could not ac- 1432 cept his learned friend's boon. He saw his learned friend's dexterity, but he must not be caught by it. The learned gentleman contended, that the letters could not be received.
Mr. Broughamsaid, his learned friend had done him injustice in supposing that he meant to take any advantage of him. The first letter was dated the 24th Feb. 1819. The second, the 6th of March, 1819. There was also a third (which was an answer to the first), dated the 28th February. The person to whom those letters had been addressed, was a director of police at Pesaro. He was aware that he had no right to press upon their lordships any reply to, or correction of his learned friend's occasional mistakes in the course of the reply. Perhaps, too, there was another reason, namely, because he did not feel himself pressed by any necessity to do so. He contended that he had a right to produce those letters, as an answer to the question, why he did not produce certain other witnesses. He had been told that he knew the contents of the letters, or he would not have held back Mariette and Hieronimus. This he denied. He had found the activity which had been used in corrupting her royal highness's servants. He saw that they had already got four of her servants, and he knew not how far the others might have been practised upon. With respect to Mariette and Hieronimus, he said on a former occasion that he did not know but they might have been under the trammels of the Omptedas and Grimms; and now it turns out, that he was perfectly well founded in the remark. If he had, in a rash moment, called any of those persons, they might have turned round upon him; they would, in reality, be the witnesses of his learned friends, whilst they would be his only to appearance. The evidence afforded by the letters of Ompteda was a proof of the sound discretion which he and his friends had exercised on this point. His learned friend had said, that there was not a tittle of proof to show any connexion between Ompteda and the present cause, now he wanted to show that there did exist such connexion, he wanted to demonstrate the fact; Majoochi was cross-examined to show that baron Ompteda had a connexion with the case; Majoochi shuffled at the questions put to him on this head, and then he and his learned friends called witnesses to contra- 1433 dict Majoochi. In the course of the examination of Carrington, it appeared that Majoochi represented Maurice Credi as employed by Ompteda to get possession of the papers of her royal highness. Again, lieut. Hownam is asked "Did Maurice credi continue in the service of her royal highness after you saw him upon his knees "He did, as far as Nuremburgh, on the journey to Vienna." Their lordships would also recollect that Restelli had been sent to Credi; that he accompanied Mr. Cooke, the head of the Milan commission, to Frankfort, where Kress had been examined; Cooke went to Frankfort to examine Credi, and Restelli said he accompanied Cooke. He only referred to those facts for the purpose of showing that sufficient had been said respecting the interference of the baron Ompteda to let in the additional evidence of the letters which he offered. With respect to Credi, he had been before the Milan commissioners, but he had not been before their lordships. Where he was now it was hard to say. He knew not whether he was in England; but it was very clear that he was in the camp of the opposite party. He knew not whether he was lodged in strong towers within the walled fortress of Milan, or a well stored and well defended fortress in the vicinity of that house; but clear it was, that they could not reach him; they could not storm the formidable fortress within which he was supposed to be, neither could any civil process reach him. He was within the power, and under the control of the supporters of the bill. Why was he not produced to contradict Carrington? Had Credi been produced, then might he (Mr. B.) have examined him as to the details of the agency of Ompteda—then might he have had an opportunity of bringing to light the scandalous conduct of that individual, and his connexion with the Milan commission. But he did not stand on this ground; he would put his right to produce the evidence he now tendered on broader, higher grounds. He would ask their lordships, whether they were prepared to refuse evidence which was most essential to the pure administration of justice in the present case? He stated openly to them the nature of the evidence which he now tendered—he told them what it was capable of demonstrating. With what appearance of justice, then, could they refuse to receive it? He did not think 1434 the courts below could refuse to receive it. But, granting that technical rules might shut out the evidence he tendered from inferior courts, it was the imperative duty of their lordships to receive it. This was not the trial of an issue—it was not a case between two ordinary persons, to be decided according to the rules of common law. Would to God it were! If it were, then would the innocence of her majesty prevail, and the verdict of the jury reecho the verdict already pronounced by the country. Would their lordships proceed on this extraordinary measure—this bill of Pains and Penalties—this ex post facto law, intended to ruin an individual under the pretence of state necessity, whilst they refused evidence so important as that which he tendered at their bar?
The Attorney Generalput it again to their lordships, whether or not his learned friend had not offered those letters for the opportunity of making a speech in reply to the concluding addresses of the counsel for the bill? What did their lordships now hear after all, but that they were not to be guided by the ordinary rules which they had hitherto followed, but that his learned friend should be allowed to bring in any evidence which he might think material to her majesty's case, and that their lordships had no discretion but to accept it. With respect to the nature of the evidence to which his learned friend alluded, he felt no alarm; but he maintained, that if their lordships adhered to the rules they had hitherto followed, there was not a tittle of ground for admitting this evidence. He denied also, that what had been said in the evidence, with respect to Maurice Credi's begging pardon before her royal highness, was any sufficient reason for the production of those papers. As to the evidence of Carrington, he was called to contradict Majoochi; but, who ever heard, that what he said of what he heard Majoochi say respecting another could be evidence as against that other? He then submitted to their lordships that there was no just ground laid for the introduction of these letters, though, he repeated, that he was not afraid of them as affecting his case if they were produced. Their lordships, however, would be the best judges whether the papers had any material bearing on the case, and, if so, whether a just ground had been given for producing them. Was it now meant to be said, on the other side, that those letters were the reasons 1435 to be given for the non-production of Mariette and Hieronimus?
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that according to the practice of the courts below, after the reply was heard, the counsel on the opposite side had no right to offer any observations, except as to cases quoted. He had seen what was passing at their lordships bar, and he could state that, in an experience of 45 years, he had hardly ever seen the rule to which he had just alluded strictly observed. Counsel generally, when they replied to cases, diverged a little to the reply of the other side. He did not say that they had any right to do so; but it was generally done. As to the case here, he should remark, what he was certain would be the fact, that no attention could be paid to such observations. With reference to the request of counsel to have those papers received, he had yet to learn what connexion there was between those letters and the evidence of Credi or Majoochi. Credi was not a witness before their lordships; and as to Majoochi's declarations, they might be evidence that he said so, but they could not be evidence of the truth of what was so said. As it was, he was of opinion that they were not evidence.
§ The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that with respect to the judgment of the courts below, he would not stop to consider what evidence they would receive or reject; but he thought their lordships stood in a situation different from the courts below, and different from all other tribunals; and he thought that what they had to consider was the simple naked question, did the evidence now offered bear upon the case? did they think it of importance to the great and important cause? If they did, how could they far one instant reject it; or rejecting it, how could they talk of even-handed justice? What was the character of the proceeding before them; what was its origin; who were its instruments? Was it an English or a German proceeding? The noble earl opposite had, on a former day, boldly stept forward and avowed, that he was responsible for the measure. In the course of the proceeding of that day, it was pretty evident that, mixed up with this proceeding, there was much German agency; there appeared about it the active interference of the minister of the king of Hanover, who was also the sovereign of this country. Agents— 1436 foreign, corrupt, and irresponsible agents had been employed to corrupt and suborn witnesses on one side, and to tamper with the witnesses for her majesty. These facts stared them in the face. Were they true? If not, let them be inquired into. But would any noble lord vote for this extraordinary bill, without satisfying himself whether this vicious agency had been employed or not? He would wish to know whether they sat there as the peers of England, or the miserable instruments of the government of Hanover? If the ministers intended to press the bill through the House, he was convinced they could not do their duty without sifting this suspicious affair to the bottom. If they proceeded one step further in the inquiry, without receiving all the evidence that they could receive on this head, they would not do their duty to the country nor to themselves.
The Duke of Hamiltonsaid, he would not enter into any consideration as to the technical difficulties that might stand in the way of the production of these letters. He would speak to a plain matter of fact. These letters were of a material importance to the defence of an accused party, who stood exposed to a bill of Pains and Penalties. Would they refuse to receive that evidence? If any one point in the whole case was more anxiously avoided than another, it was the Milan commission. He should have thought that the noble earl opposite would have told them that this important question should be examined with the utmost impartiality, and that he would have divested the British government of any concern in transactions which could not be referred to without pain and disapprobation. This bill of Pains and Penalties stood opposed to every principle of the British constitution. He was happy, therefore, to have that opportunity to protest against it. He did so upon the broad principle, that such a bill was subversive of the British constitution Opposed to this bill of Pains and Penalties, her majesty stood in a situation different from the situation in which other persons would have stood. If their lordships felt for her situation—if they meant to investigate the truth—if they meant to satisfy the feelings of the country, they would afford ample opportunities to her majesty to expose that conspiracy which they had so much reason to suppose existed against her. Their lordships would not do justice to the case of 1437 her majesty, if they refused to receive this evidence. He would therefore move that the papers be received.
§ Earl Greysaid, he had always felt and declared that a bill of Pains and Penalties was a proceeding which nothing could justify, but a question of state necessity. Such necessity was not proved on the present occasion. Entertaining this constitutional feeling against the bill, he had stated it at an early period of the proceeding. Their lordships thought otherwise, and having agreed to proceed on this bill, they had sat there for a period of from 40 to 50 days, hearing evidence for and against it. Were they now, in the last stage of this proceeding, to depart from the rule which they had followed throughout? It was stated by a learned lord, in which he thought every body must concur, that according to the rules of law, this evidence was not admissible. The question was, was the evidence tendered, so material to their decision as to induce them to depart from the rule which they had originally made? His noble friend had said, that an inquiry into the character and conduct of the Milan commission was of great importance. He concurred with him; but the present was not the moment most convenient to institute that inquiry.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he was ready to admit that they ought, as much as possible, to adhere to the rules of evidence as followed in the courts below; but when they assumed the station of a legislative body, the object of their inquiry ought to be in the first place, to promote the cause of truth and justice. To this great object every inferior consideration ought to yield. The question before them was not a judicial, but a legislative measure; and on this ground their lordships were bound to see whether the evidence had come fairly before them, or whether corrupt and miserable arts had been employed to suborn that evidence and to pervert the ends of justice? In his opinion, their lordships were not bound down by the technical rules of law. The spirit of exalted justice alone should guide their proceedings. Proceedings in courts of law in ordinary cases had, in fact, no relation whatever to the proceedings before them. Would they stifle inquiry, where inquiry was so anxiously called for by an abused and complaining party? In his opinion, they would forget their duty if they should shrink from an inquiry necessary to the attainment of justice.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he was one of those who felt that the House ought to have gone into a full inquiry on this head. But as they had not done so, he did not think that, at the present moment, they could take up the subject; the more so, because the inquiry would be of a partial and imperfect nature.
Lord Hollandsuggested, that if this evidence was to be received, it would then be incumbent, on them to go further into the new inquiry which would by that means be opened. For his own part, he felt himself quite exhausted by the length to which the main investigation had already extended. His reason, however, for the vote that he should give on this question, was—and it would afford him great satisfaction to find that others were equally influenced by the same reason—that he was determined to vote against the bill itself, on principles which had often been maintained in that House on former occasions. He did think also, that no man could give an honest vote the other way, without first sifting and examining every part of the subject, and acquainting himself with the real means by which this prosecution had been set on foot. He himself, indeed, felt no desire for such an investigation; he wanted not, after so long an inquiry into the conduct of the Queen, to be led into an inquiry as to the proceedings of Hanoverian ministers. Those, however, who proposed to say content to the second reading of a bill like this, were bound to assure themselves that it had been brought forward by just, legitimate, and constitutional means.
The Marquis of Lansdownagreed that the evidence in question was not admissible, in consequence of the rule which they had themselves previously laid down. But it was one thing to say, that the evidence in question formed no material part of the inquiry, and another to say that, in accordance with this rule, they were prevented from receiving it. Their lordships had, during the course of these proceedings, rejected evidence tendered in support of a charge of conspiracy on the one side, and were bound, therefore, to exclude it on either side. It could not be becoming to receive it at this closing stage of the general inquiry Undoubtedly, some amongst them had a deep interest in the production of this evidence, and more especially the noble earl opposite who had said, that no foreign minis- 1439 ter, whatever had been authorized to interfere in this business, and that the whole had been left to the conduct of the Milan commission. But it was not on that account, or for the gratification of any noble lord, that the House ought to be induced to depart from the rules which it had laid down. Inconvenience might, no doubt, be experienced, but it was only a part of that general inconvenience which had attended the whole of this proceeding, and he feared would continue to attend it till its close. It was evident that this circumstance would entitle the illustrious person accused to a favourable consideration on the second reading of the bill, but he felt himself compelled to negative the present motion.
§ The House divided: Contents, 16; Not-contents, 145: Majority, 129. The Counsel were called in, and informed, that the Letters offered could not be received in evidence. The further consideration of the Bill was adjourned to Thursday.