The House adjourned during pleasure.—When the House was resumed, the Attorney General proceeded as follows:

Mr. Attorney General

.—My lords; it is not my intention to be diverted from the course of observations I was pursuing, when last I had the pleasure of addressing your lordships, by one of the most extraordinary applications that I believe was ever before heard in a court of justice, and in the middle of a reply. I shall have occasion to observe upon that, in another part of the observations which I have to make to your lordships; but I shall now pursue the evidence where I was interrupted by the indulgence which your lordships have been kind enough to grant me.

My lords; I was coming to the period at which her royal highness embarked on board the Leviathan at Genoa—and, my lords, in coming to that part of the case, I cannot but remind your lordships of the evidence given by Demont and Majoochi of the disposition of the rooms at Genoa, at Milan, at the various places they visited after their first arrival at Genoa. My lords, I only recall your lordships' recollection to that part of the case to state this—that that disposition of the rooms is not contradicted by any evidence on the part of the defence. In one instance only a contradiction was attempted with respect to a stair-case. At the Villa d'Este, where Majoochi stated that there was a secret stair-case near her royal highness's room, not generally used by the family, and in which a contradiction is attempted by lieut. Hownam, who 1275 states, that it led to the apartments of himself and others of the family; but which he himself believes had only been used by himself.

My lords; I call your lordships' attention to that part of the case at this period of it, because you will find the same system pursued by her royal highness when she embarked on board the Leviathan. Captain Briggs had made a certain arrangement and disposition of the cabins, placing her royal highness and the countess Oldi in two cabins inside the dining-room, placing her female servants in the place to be sure which would naturally occur to any one to place them in, namely, a room immediately adjoining her royal highness's, and having an internal communition with that room or cabin. My lords, her royal highness disapproved of this arrangement. She preferred that which had been her universal practice, of having Bergami, her equerry, placed in the cabin immediately adjoining her own, and in that cabin that captain Briggs had appropriated to the female servants. My lords, in p. 160,^* captain Briggs states the appropriation which he had made of the cabin for the accommodation of her royal highness and her servants, and he states subsequently, that that disposition was altered by command of her royal highness; and your lordships will recollect, in his last examination, he stated it was an alteration in which Mr. Hownam had concurred,† by the approbation of her royal highness—a fact, however, which Hownam's memory had not retained, as well as a part of the conversation with captain Briggs, which, in Mr. Hownam's reexamination he had quite forgot had taken place, although that conversation occurred only a month Or six weeks ago. My lords, why do I remark upon this alteration of the cabins? Because, I say, it is part of that system and that habit that runs through the whole of the evidence in this case. What occasion was there for Bergami to be the person placed immediately near her royal highness on board the Leviathan? Would it not have been equally safe for her to have had her female servants in a room immediately adjoining to hers, and Bergami at some distance? Was there any apprehension entertained by her of any thing improper occurring on board the Leviathan, that ^* See Vol. 2, p. 951. † See p. 1023 of the present Volume. 1276 should have induced her to this alteration? Nothing. But, my lords, the favourite Bergami, the equerry, is selected upon that occasion to occupy the room immediately adjoining her royal highness's; and although the internal communication in consequence of that arrangement was shut up, you will find, that the door of his cabin opened immediately contiguous to that of her royal highness; so that it afforded that facility which, upon all occasions anterior, had been afforded, of an easy access and communication between the sleeping apartment of her royal highness and that of Bergami. I know-very well, that upon the cross-examination and the examination by your lordships, a strict inquiry was made of captain Briggs, how far Bergami might find his way into the princess's room without being observed. My lords, I wish to make no comments on that evidence; but I think you will perceive that it was most easy for him to have accomplished that purpose if he had liked it, without any observation. Captain Briggs slept in the dining-room, but on the opposite side, in a part divided off at night from the other part. He states, that though he might be interrupted at night, by persons coming to state what was passing on deck, yet that a person so communicating with him could have approached his room without interrupting any person who might have wished to have gone to her royal highness's room from the cabin of Bergami. My lords, that arrangement was made by her royal highness; and it is in proof to you by captain Briggs, that that occurred aboard his ship which has been spoken to by so many other witnesses; namely, that her royal highness took the arm of Bergami when walking on the quarter-deck.

On board this ship her royal highness visited Elba, and afterwards proceeded to Sicily, and my lords, it will be material for your lordships to attend to what occurred in Sicily after her arrival there. At Messina facts are deposed to, both by Demont and Majoochi.^* Demont of the indecent familiarities which took place between her royal highness and Bergami. My lords, it was supposed, that there were some variances between their testimony respecting her royal highness and Bergami kissing at Messina; but there is no evidence that they were speaking to the same period, and they state the expres- ^* See Vol. 2. pp. 1132 and 817. 1277 sions of her royal highness. She addresses him as, "Moncœur, mon ami;" words which no woman would have used to a servant unless there had been that familiarity between them which is imputed to her royal highness.

My lords; I will next call your lordships attention to a most important fact I in this case—I mean what took place at Catania; my lords, a fact is spoken to by Demont, which if true, proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that an adulterous intercourse took place at Catania. She states, that in consequence of some illness which Bergami suffered at Catania, a change of his sleeping apartment took place, and that he occupied a room that had been previously occupied by the countess Oldi—that between that room and the room occupied by her royal highness, there was another sleeping apartment occupied by Demont and her sister, and that the communication between the princess's room and the countess Oldi's room, was through that room so occupied by Demont and her sister. In consequence of that change, the countess of Oldi removed from that room which she had occupied with the little Victorine, and in which Bergami afterwards slept. Demont states, that she heard the door of her royal highness's room open at night; she also states, that upon one morning, having remained in her room rather later than usual, she saw the room door in which Bergami slept open, and her royal highness come out of that room in the dress she usually wore when she went to bed and with the pillows on which she usually reposed un-her arm.

My lords; we are told in this case, that Demont is a witness unworthy, of credit. Various observations were made by my learned friends upon the testimony of that person, and we have had most eloquent dissertations on the credit of discarded servants—still more, on the testimony of Demont after those documents were produced, one written to her royal highness, and another to her sister, And I did suppose, from the line of argument they took, that they were so satisfied in their own minds (at least they chose to affect to be so satisfied), that the testimony of Demont was not to be relied on, that I was astonished when I found at the close of their case, that they felt, notwithstanding all their observations, and all that magnificent dis- 1278 play of eloquence bestowed on this chambermaid by my learned friends—that they had so far failed in the impression they intended—that the ground they had taken was so weak, that their last witness, called over at the last moment, arriving in this country only the night before she is produced—a milliner from Morje—is produced to establish a contradiction to Demont upon a collateral fact, upon which we have heard so much, with respect to the testimony of lieut. Flinn, upon which I shall observe when I come to discuss that gentleman's testimony. So weak did they find their ground of attack—knowing that Demont had not been shaken—that every step they took confirmed and strengthened her narrative—as a last resource, at the last moment when the case was about to be closed, they call this milliner from Morje to depose to a conversation between her and Demont, in April 1818, in order to destroy her testimony by that contradiction! Why, my lords, if I wanted any other demonstration that my learned friends felt that her testimony was not shaken by those letters, this is a strong proof that they felt it.

What are the circumstances attending those letters? It is with pain, that, in an accusation against the Queen of this country, we should have it come out in evidence that a paltry intrigue had taken place with respect to that female—that when we talk of violation of private confidence, not only was private confidence violated, but Demont's letters to her sister were intercepted—that letters to her sister are extorted from that sister to destroy her testimony. And what does it amount to? I say the first letter of Demont written from Rimini, contains an expression in it which satisfies my mind that she felt the ground of intimacy between the Queen and Bergami; that she knew they were living together as man and wife, and at the head jointly of the establishment at Pesaro. For I call your lordships attention to a remarkable passage at the commencement of the letter from Rimini, which marks strongly what Demont felt with respect to the connexion and familiarity of intercourse which existed between the baron and her royal highness. "I cannot sufficiently thank her royal highness and the baron for their kindness in sending Ferdinand to accompany me; he has paid me all the attention and taken all the care of me imaginable. I 1279 know not how to acknowledge so Many benefits,"^* and so forth. Here is the baron and the Queen united together in the same sentence, as both concurring in that act of kindness which they had conferred upon Demont; and I say, that that accidental expression in the letter coupling the baron with her royal highness as the persons who had conjointly conferred those favours, speaks to my mind demonstrably what had passed in the mind of Demont.

But then, my lords, you are told, that the other letter to her sister, written under circumstances which she has described marks the hypocrisy of this woman, and therefore her testimony is unworthy of credit. My lords, I say that when you consider all the circumstances under which she was placed—when you recollect the intrigue of intercepting her letters before she left her royal highness's service—when you remember her sister was still in the service, and that she knew that her sister was watched by that person, and that her letters were intercepted—I say at that time it was extremely natural for Demont to take care to express in these letters nothing which should excite the suspicion or jealousy of her royal highness—I say that is the clue to the whole of that letter; and in part of her evidence, she states, at page 351, "I have often had questions put to me in private conversation, and I have always avoided saying what took place in the house; this is the reason why I wrote that letter to my sister."† I say, my lords, that is a clue to the conversation, if it did pass between her and Madame Martigner in 1818—she was questioned—she carefully avoided entering into details of what had taken place in the house. Knowing her sister was in the family, and how dangerous it was for her to say any thing discreditable to her royal highness, she took care to avoid stating what had passed; and her letter conveys nothing, whatever, contradictory to the evidence here detailed. She is complimenting her royal highness's various virtues; but it is because she knows the letters will be seen—it is because she knows, that her sister might be discharged from the situation, who had not the means of subsistence which she herself had. But, recollect the cross-examination of Demont—how she is tortured as to whether ^* See Vol. 2, p. 1234. † See Vol. 2, p. 1203. 1280 she went by the name of the countess Colombier—and not a witness is called td contradict those answers! For what purpose were the questions put? I ask your lordships whether it was not intended as a medium by which they should contradict Demont by witnesses they should afterwards produce? My lords, they have failed to produce any such witnesses—the sole witness is Madame Martigner; and it is as to a conversation to which Demont was not asked when she was first examined; but there is not any person to say she went by the name of the countess of Colombier in Frith-street. Her evidence, therefore, stands confirmed by the other testimony given in the case; but confirmed still more strongly by the absence of those witnesses who might have been called to contradict her. Do not let me hear of Mariette being the person to contradict her as to what passed at Catania. "No," says my learned friend, "she does not swear Mariette was present, and therefore to produce Mariette would be no contradiction at all." But there was another witness to prove the fact most satisfactorily. I mean the countess Oldi, from whose room Demont says the princess went—from whose room she absented herself in the night, Victorine crying in consequence of the absence of her foster mother, the princess. She is not produced—because she must have confirmed the fact, and that would at once have established the whole case attempted to be made out against the Queen. I trust I have satisfied your lordships as to the testimony of Demont—watch it with suspicion, examine it with care, see how it accords with the other parts of the testimony, see where it is confirmed, and where attempted to be broken in upon—but do not let us run away with a notion of those letters of hers destroying her credit. My learned friends do not think it, as they have tried to destroy it by other means, and have failed to do it; and I say, that by that failure they have established Demont's evidence.

My lords; at Catania, therefore, I submit to your lordships, that the case is proved by the testimony of Demont, uncontradicted by those two witnesses, one of whom might have positively contradicted the fact, if she had been present, and if she were not, she could not have contradicted it; but the most Demont says is, that she does not recollect whe- 1281 ther her sister was there, but she rather thinks she was, than that she was not—Page 282 is that part of Demont's evidence which relates to that part of the case.^* The countess Oldi was brought over by count Vassali; she is in this country, and yet neither of them is produced to contradict a fact so important, so material in the case.

My lords; at Catania honours were bestowed on Bergami—he is created a knight of Malta, and either there, or at Augusta, he is created the baron della Franchina. Some observation was made by my learned friends, that those honours were not proved to have been obtained by her royal highness—"they are," said he, "to be purchased for money, and you have no evidence that the money proceeded from her royal highness." In what situation was Bergami? He had been a courier at forty or fifty Louis a year—What means had he to procure those honours? I say it would be trifling with your lordships to argue upon such miserable points as those attempted to be made out on the part of the defence—I say those honours were procured for him by her royal highness; and though my learned friends say, these facts bear nothing against her royal highness, I say they prove every thing—they show that this man growing in her favour was the only person in her suite honoured in this way—he is the only person, an equerry, for whom the knighthood of Malta and the barony della Franchina are procured.

My lords; at Augusta your lordships will recollect the facts sworn to by Demont, at page 284; and 286,† with respect to the portraits there painted for her royal highness—one for Bergami of herself in the character of a penitent Magdalen, the other Bergami as a Turk; and those pictures were seen in the possession of Bergami. Why, my lords, how do you account for these things? Portraits of her royal highness bestowed on a servant! How do you account for it? She is in daily intercourse with him; these facts take place before the eyes of her servants; a portrait is presented to him by her royal highness—these things do not take place except between lovers. They are striking facts—but they are facts which my learned friends have most adroitly kept out of your view—they say, ^* See Vol. 2, p. 1137. † See Vol. 2, p. 1138. 1282 "We will show you she slept under a tent on board the polacre, where Bergami also; slept, unspotted and untainted—that there was no familiarity unbecoming her station"—Dining with a courier, in his courier's dress is passed over, and then they say, "We will show her passing her time on board the polacre a spotless and unstained character, and therefore you must consider all that occurred before as out of the case, and you must consider all pure up to that time."—You will consider her habitual situation, her manner of living, the personal distinctions bestowed on this man, and bearing this in your recollection, then indeed my learned friends would have been bold to advance to the case of the polacre, to which they said they advanced with such delight, but which, by an accidental omission, Mr. Brougham omitted to mention in his speech. Mr. Williams says, that Mr. Brougham made that accidental omission in his able and eloquent speech, although he commented on the evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo. But that is supplied by my learned friend, Mr. Williams. He ventures boldly on the case; he says he advances to it with the greatest satisfaction, and that it is a case which he wishes, of all others, to grapple with. He is followed by Mr. Denman, and Dr. Lushington, in the same strain; and at one period of the case, when these facts of the polacre were coming out on my learned friends a little unexpectedly, Mr. Brougham says, "I admit all that"—"That is part of our case," he says—But we shall see how far it is part of their case, or how far it was part of the case in support of the bill.

But, my lords, before I come to the scenes on board the polacre, let me observe upon what took place on her royal highness going on board the Clorinde, captain Pechell. My lords, she had been on board that ship before, on her voyage from Civita Vecchia to Genoa, and at that time Bergami had waited behind her chair, as a menial servant. On the second embarkation on board that ship at Messina, Bergami had been advanced in the manner we have described. Captain Pechell, with a feeling which reflects the greatest credit on that manly officer, says, "I cannot submit to the degradation of admitting to my table, a man who had previously lived in a menial capacity, and had actually waited behind my chair"—because it is clear this was 1283 passing in his mind. "I have heard, and seen nothing which can justify such an advancement. I can infer nothing but what is disgraceful, and I will not degrade the character of a British captain, by sitting at table with him." I have heard in a tone of exultation, from my learned friends, that captain Pechell, and captain Briggs, were their witnesses. How far captain Briggs is their witness, after his contradiction of Mr. Hownam, I do not know. They are our witnesses, they say, and therefore we marshal them in the front to support the defence. Do they? Can any man observe the conduct of captain Pechell and her royal highness on that occasion, and draw any other than one conclusion? Captain Pechell communicates to her, through captain Briggs, his objection to Bergami—that that is the only objection he has to providing at table for her, and her suite. What would have been the conduct of her royal highness, if the advancement of Bergami was innocent—if the exaltation of this man had been owing to some services he had performed for her? In the mind of any honourable female, she would have said, "Captain Pechell, I have advanced him to that situation, and having done so, you will not degrade yourself, by participating at the meals at which he sits. I have found him faithful among the many, who have betrayed me." Such would have been her answer; and she would have said, "having given you this answer, recollect you are treating the princess of Wales with indignity—you are degrading her, and I will represent to your superior officer your conduct." But, what is her royal highness's conduct? She pauses—she hesitates—she feels the indignity to her favourite Bergami; and, therefore, after two or three days she does that which marks the consciousness of guilt—she submits, and abstains from the table of captain Pechell. Not a single observation was made on this by my learned friends—they glide over it as they do over all the facts which make against them. But, I say, that that fact conveys a conviction of that, which subsisted at that time, between her royal highness and Bergami.

My lords; after that, at Augusta she embarks on board the polacre; and your lordships will recollect the disposition of the rooms which WAS made upon her embarkation, they are spoken to by Paturzo, and Gargiulo. My lords, an alteration 1284 was made at Tunis; and that alteration is attempted to be accounted for by a doctor being taken on board at Tunis. Now, mark, I pray you, that circumstance. It is argued, though not proved, that protection was the object which her royal highness had in view, in placing Bergami continually so near her apartments. My lords, it seems that at Tunis, he was to be brought still nearer than he had previously been—he had been before, in the cabin outside of the dining-room, but on this occasion he is removed into the dining-room, and his bed placed in such a situation, that on the opening of the door, they might, in certain positions, see each other in bed. But, whether they did or did not, the bed was so near her royal highness's room, that there was that facility which Dr. Lushington admits did exist of an adulterous intercourse; but still, he says, "Do not draw the inference, that it took place merely from the circumstance of the disposition of the rooms." But, my lords, his bed is placed in such a situation, that he can with ease gain access to her room, through the door of her cabin; and, after that arrangement was made, one of the doors of the dining-cabin was blocked up, so as to leave only one entrance to that cabin, and thereby the more easily to exclude persons after Bergami and her royal highness had retired to rest. What conclusion can any man draw from these facts? Why, I say but one. Bergami is the person upon all these occasions who is thus placed; and facilities are thus afforded to him, and to him alone. I say, therefore, that a man must wilfully shut his eyes to the light, who can doubt about the conclusion to which all this conduct leads. Where, my lords, do they sleep at Tunis? And is not the same disposition made at Utica? It was supposed there was a contradiction between Demont and Hownam, in consequence of what Demont had stated. The question was, "Where did you reside at Utica?" and the answer was, "In a small country-house;" and Mr. Hownam proves, that Utica is in ruins, and that they did sleep in a small palace belonging to the son of the bey. She is not asked whose country-house it was, and it is proved it was a palace belonging to the bey. What contradiction is there in that? Site was not asked whether it belonged to the bey? She swears, as was the fact, that they did sleep near Utica; and, therefore, there is no contradiction whatever.

1285 My lords; my learned friends say, that nothing has been proved, with respect to Zavouan. My lords, there has been something proved, and I will call your attention to it. It is in page 289. "Did you see the bed of her royal highness in the morning? Yes.—Did it appear as if one person only had slept in it or more than one? It seemed much in disorder. I cannot say that two persons had slept in the bed, but it rather appeared to me, that two persons had slept in it rather than one."^* Why, my lords, that this, therefore, did occur at Zavouan, is proved by Demont; and the only observation my learned friends can make upon it, is this: "Your opening stated some more particulars, than you have proved in evidence, and therefore the whole case is to fall to the ground." Such is the logic, and the argument on the other side! whereas, your lordships are to look to the facts proved, and if you find they satisfactorily lead you to the conclusion, which that statement was intended to lead to, then, laying aside what may have been stated, your lordships are bound to decide on the proof.

My lords; at Ephesus, a transaction is spoken to by Majoochi on which ray learned friends think they have established a material contradiction to him. My lords, Majoochi states, that a dinner was prepared in the coffee-house, and her royal highness and Bergarni ordered him to carry it within this place, surrounded by a wall, and that they dined there alone—the princess sitting on her travelling-bed, and Bergami on the ground at her feet. Majoochi waited on them, and after dinner they remained there.^* Mr. Hownam is called to contradict this part of the statement. He is asked, "Where her royal highness dined?" and he says, "It was in the church-yard, next the coffee-house, where we had slept the night before, under the portico of an old mosque."—"Did she dine alone upon that occasion?" "I am convinced we all dined together. I recollect most perfectly."—"How did you contrive to sit upon that occasion?" "We sat on the ground; her royal highness sat on her travelling-bed." Now, my lords, mark the recollection of Mr. Hownam: "Did any body sit with her?" "I do not remember." Then, my lords, finding that he did not remem- ^* See Vol. 2, p. 1142. † See Vol. 2, p. 820. 1286 ber that, a plump question was put to him—(we are told leading questions have been confined to this side of the bar)—and having got this non mi ricordo, I will show you how it applies—"Are you sure that the rest of the suite were there during the time of dinner?" "I am confident as to having dined myself, and every body else."—"Do you recollect where the countess Oldi sat upon that occasion?" Non mi ricordo—"I cannot recollect the spot where she sat, but I am convinced we all dined together."^* I say, my lords, that this is not a contradiction—a man swears positively that the princess and Bergami dined alone in this vestibule; another man, who cannot recollect who dined there, or where the people sat, comes and states his conviction that is all his belief; and upon his cross-examination, when he is asked whether he will swear that that day he dined with her royal highness? he answers, "I will swear that is the impression on my mind—that I dined with her royal highness." I say therefore, that this is not a positive contradiction—a man who swears to a fact which took place within his own knowledge is not contradicted by another swearing he does not believe it; and your lordships will see that Mr. Hownam forgets every thing but this general conviction. He admits the fact of dining under the tent; but as far as it was intended as a contradiction of Majoochi it fails, because he only swears to his conviction and belief, and not positively to the fact.

My lords; after Ephesus I am not aware that any thing particular occurs in the evidence, until you arrive at Aura, and the land-journey from St. Jean d'Acre to Jerusalem. Now, my lords, mark that part of the case, which not only is not contradicted but I think both in argument and in statement, admitted by my learned friends; and if that case be true, as I think I shall satisfy your lordships it is, it strikes my mind as conclusive evidence of the guilt of her royal highness. My lords, what is the case? They travel by night and encamp by day; and her royal highness, after the fatigue of her journey, reposes under a tent which is erected for her, and outside that tent, is another tent, between which, and the tent in which she reposed, two persons are constantly placed to protect her. We have heard a great deal of the ne- ^* See p. 500 of the present Volume. 1287 cessity of her having male attendants near her, for the purpose of protection; but upon this occasion not satisfied with Majoochi, and Carlini (the nephew of Bergami), who were both sleeping; in the outer circle of the tent, Bergami himself reposes constantly under the same tent with her, when she stands in need of no protection, and when, if she did stand in need of it, he could have afforded it, as well as Majoochi and Carlini, in the outer circle. I have heard it said, that she came in much fatigued, that she threw herself on the bed without taking off her clothes, except the outer garments. Good God, my lords, she reposes there all day, and because she is fatigued, no suspicion, no inference, arises whatever from her reposing side by side with Bergami under the same tent, because forsooth, she requires a protector in such a situation! Why, if she were fatigued, would not the countess Oldi or Demont have been the person to have been selected? She wanted no male protector. And yet you hear it argued at this time of day, that there is no harm, no suspicion, from a lady sleeping in the same room with a menial servant, exposed to all the indelicacies which must occur during such a repose! and we are now to argue, and it is gravely argued out of doors, that that upon which your lordships have divorced and degraded female after female is no evidence against a princess, because there is a possibility that no intercourse of an illicit and disgraceful kind took place! My lords, if you listen to this, you must repeal those Divorce bills—you never can divorce persons on such evidence hereafter—it must go forth as your decision, that a woman of rank may sleep, night after night, with a male attendant—and your lordships are to proclaim that this may be done with innocence, with purity, and that hereafter women may sleep, night after night, with their menial servants close to them, because there is no evidence that they were undressed, and because there is evidence of there being another bed in the room! Do my learned friends know—(if not I will inform them)—that it is not the habit of any persons in those countries to undress when they repose? Had they taken the trouble to refer to the travels with which Dr. Holland has enlightened and amused the world, they would have found that this is the constant mode of repose. But the Turkish ladies would say, 1288 it is a most extraordinary inference that, though they repose in the same tent in clothes, and with a male in the tent in clothes, no illicit intercourse can take place—I will read a passage from Dr. Holland's Travels, which shows the habits of persons in that part—it is in the first volume, pages 227 and 232:—"Bed-chambers are not to be sought for in Greek or Turkish habitations.—The sofas of their living apartments are the places of nightly, repose with the higher classes—the floors with those of inferior rank. Neither men nor women take off more than a small part of their dress." Why, my lords, in that country, where you hear it is not the babit to undress, where sofas and beds of the description that her royal highness had, are the common places of repose—your lordships are gravely asked to infer no guilt, nay, no suspicion, against her royal highness, for having reposed, night after night, in this manner with her favourite Bergami under the tent, because, forsooth, she occupied a travelling-bed, and he a sofa, and because they did not entirely undress, where it is not the habit to undress! It is to go forth to the world that this may be done innocently, and although no cause is assigned for the arrangement, because, my lords, there is the strength of the case against my learned friends, and there they felt the difficulty of combating this part of the case. I say, then, that their case of protection fails s them—the countess Oldi might have slept under the tent, Demont might have slept under the tent, Mariette might have slept under the tent, Bergami might have slept in the outer tent, without subjecting her to those indelicacies which must take place where persons repose after a journey, and where they repose for so long a period as they did during that journey to Jerusalem. But, my lords, is the fact so? Why, my lords, what is proved by Demont, and by Majoochi? Majoochi says, the inner tent was closed by Bergami.—On cross-examination, my learned friends get out, that Demont's sister more usually attended her royal highness than Demont—Demont says, that the princess was partly undressed under the tent at Aum; that upon another occasion her sister undressed her. Majoochi states that Bergami was under the tent with her, and Demont says, that she saw some articles of Bergami's dress in her royal highness's room. Why, my lords, is this not capable of con- 1289 tradiction? Is this a fact that my learned friends think so trival in the case, that although they take the trouble to contradict Demont on supposed conversations, although Majoochi is to be cross-examined from time to time as to conversations which he may have had, yet, on the vital points on which innocence or guilt rests, neither Carlini, nor any other person, is called to contradict the fact of her royal highness's sleeping under the tent with Bergami, at a time when no reason can be assigned for it, that would be sufficient to establish a verdict in Westminster Hall? Nay, these circumstances are more than sufficient. Then, I say, you are doing injustice to other parties, if on such evidence you hesitate to draw that conclusion which between other parties you draw. My lords, I say again, that this fact, taken by itself, is enough; but when you add the other, circumstances uncontradieted and undisputed in the case, it strikes me that no man, coming to a decision of the case with that impartiality which he ought to possess, can, for a moment, hesitate to decide that that is conclusive and satisfactory proof of adultery. Good God! how is adultery to be proved? Are my learned friends prepared to argue that men and women may sleep in the same room, but unless you prove them in bed no inference is to arise? Is it to go forth to the society of the kingdom, and to families, that such things may be innocently done? If so, there is an end of all female delicacy—there is an end of all those nice feelings which should subsist in their minds—and hereafter no adultery can be substantiated in a court of justice, if these facts are not sufficient to lead to a decisive conviction of the fact.

If that be so, my lords, with respect to the Aura case, what shall we say to the case now substantiated in proof on board the polacre?—that case which my learned friends say is our last prop and stay, in support of this bill—which they have been unable, by any evidence, to shake, or by any observation to destroy. And, my lords, when I come to show your lordships what that case is—how proved—how capable of contradiction and not contradicted—how confirmed by the testimony on the adverse side—if your lordships could for a moment (which I cannot believe you could) entertain a doubt about the Aum case, I say an adulterous intercourse is proved beyond all doubt on board 1290 the polacre, after her royal highness's embarkation at Jaffa.

My lords; what are the facts from Jaffa to Capo d'Anza, occupying, Mr. Flinn says, nearer two months than one, from the 18th of July to the 5th September? A tent is erected upon the deck. My lords, a reason is assigned for this, that in consequence of some horses being embarked on board the polacre, the noise they made and the disagreeable smell occasioned by them below, and the heat of the weather, induced her royal highness to repose on deck under a tent. My learned friend, Mr. Denman, says, it does not deserve the name of a tent, that it is only the awning of the ship easily let down, a mere covering thrown round her royal highness, open to the breezes of the heavens, and not to be dignified with the name of tent. But, what says lieut. Flinn, who has been so eulogized—what does he say on the fastening of the tent? He says, it was fastened down to ring-bolts on the deck. Gargiulo and Paturzo both state how the tent was closed at night. It was closed all round at night. Majoochi also states that. My lords, I beg you carefully to peruse the whole of the evidence given by those two persons; it would be tedious in me to recite it at length. Every answer which they give is most important upon the present occasion. Not a shadow of imputation can be cast upon them—no evidence can be given to contradict them—and therefore the only observations to be made are upon the remuneration which they are to receive for coming here as witnesses. My lords, those of your lordships who know any thing of the manner in which foreign witnesses are paid, know perfectly well, that they always demand and generally receive a very large compensation. My lords, I might refer even to the testimony given on the part of her majesty, and to recall what was stated by the last witness from Morje in Switzerland, as to the compensation she required. She had 70l. paid, a deposit of a 100l. at a banker's, and she stated the expectations she entertained as to the remuneration she was to receive. My lords, this captain and mate were withdrawn from their employment, which was active and profitable at Naples—their ships may be no longer capable of rendering profit till their return; but my learned friend, in order to exaggerate their remuneration, makes out that they are to receive a very large sum per annum, and 1291 by that he jumps to the conclusion, that any man who extorts such a sum must necessarily be perjured in every tittle of his evidence. My lords, that is not so—they are to be paid according to the time they are absent—a large remuneration I will admit. I know that these captains of vessels always require large remunerations, and I could have shown that large remunerations have been frequently demanded and paid to procure testimony here. My lords, are you therefore to believe that those two persons came here deliberately to perjure themselves, in consequence of that remuneration? Try their testimony—if they have perjured themselves, could they not have been contradicted at almost every step of the case. What do they depose to with respect to the state of the tent by day? "Oh," my learned friends say, "by night protection was necessary—a landsman was the best person to assist her royal highness on the deck." Bergami was the person, of all others, to be selected on the occasion, though Hownam had been a sailor, and Flinn slept in his hammock on the helm. But both the captain and mate state not only that the tent was closed by day, but that it was closed by the orders of Schiavini. Where is Schiavini? Here. He has been sent for witnesses—he has assisted lieut. Flinn with extracts in order to enable hint to refresh his memory as to the periods at which he performed the voyage—he is at Brandenburgh-house with her majesty; and yet, although this fact is proved by them, Schiavini has not nerve enough to be produced! Because of the terrors of my learned friend's cross-examination, the ladies—the countess Oldi and Mariette, will not expose themselves to the hazard of a slip—but, has he not nerve enough to deny this fact, which speaks volumes, which shows what was passing between them at that time, too disgusting to allude to—that in the face of day, when he was reposing on the bed one day, the princess hanging over him, Schiavini gives them orders to let down the tent, and in his presence that order is obeyed? Are these men perjured? have they come here to give false testimony for the remuneration which they are to receive? The proof is ready at my learned friends hands. They may produce Schiavini—he is still in their service—they knew nothing, I suppose, from which to suspect Schiavini—he has done: nothing to excite the suspicions of her ma- 1292 jesty—he has not corresponded with the baron Ompteda—he knows nothing of what passed with respect to the supposed picking of locks, to get the secret correspondence of her royal highness—he is the person who, the witnesses say, ordered the tent to be let down by day; and yet, in a case where her majesty's innocence is to be made as clear as the sun at noon-day—where she challenges all inquiry, and promises to produce all the witnesses in her favour, Schiavini, who is at Brandenburgh-house, is not called. And I say his not being called, leaves the captain and the mate uncontradicted, and being uncontradicted in that part, what reason have you to disbelieve the other parts of the testimony? Why did they think it necessary to call count Vassali to contradict the supposed journey to Sinigaglia, and to throw a cloud over the Carlsruhe case. They felt how necessary it was to call Vassali—they had confidence in his nerves—but they dare not produce Schiavini, Carlini, and other persons. By whom was the light given out of the tent at night? By Bergami—and it was given to Majoochi and Carlini. Why is not Carlini produced? They cannot produce him—they know he would establish a fact damning to the reputation of her majesty; namely, that Bergami was with her, and that he was the person by whom the light was excluded from the tent, in order that they might repose in darkness under that covering.

But, my lords, it is said, the hatchway is open—the communication below is open, and therefore there was no mystery in the transaction; and therefore you are to presume innocence, because there was no mystery. I know not by what logic or reasoning you are to arrive at this conclusion. There are periods when a passion of this kind gets the better of all reason—they find it can only be gratified under the tent—it is not convenient to sleep below, Bergami is the only person removed from the dining-room to sleep under the tent; and no person can believe, that, for five weeks together, they could sleep under the tent innocently, because there was no proof that they were undressed. I again refer your lordships to that which must pass, with a man and woman in this situation; and I say, that no woman of delicacy could repose, not a night but an hour, with a man under the same tent, who had not been carrying on that illicit and disgraceful intercourse 1293 which the evidence fixes on this occasion. Are we to have reasons for this? Yes. Lieut. Hownam is asked to it. Questions are put to him, not only by my learned friends, but your lordships; and, my lords, I wish to refer you to the various accounts which he gives, as to the different reasons that induced him to think there was no impropriety in Bergami sleeping under the tent. It is important for you to observe that; because the case is put on that. They say it was necessary for a man to sleep under the tent. Some of your lordships asked, Would not a sailor be better than a landsman, is not he more accustomed to the rolling of the ship? and he says, Schiavini was a landsman; and yet Bergami, who is not shown to have been at sea before, is the person selected, although Schiavini, as a landsman, would have been an improper person to have on that occasion. But, my lords, it is really trifling to see the reasons—there were no suspicions of the crew when he is asked, whether other arrangements might not have been made, "they never occurred to him before"—"undoubtedly there might." Lieutenant Flinn slept on deck every night except one, and therefore he was close at hand to assist her royal highness in case of danger. But, my lords, what would be the conduct of a woman anxious for protection, but not desirous of affording facilities to this illicit intercourse?—Would she not have had countess Oldi with her under the tent? We were threatened by Mr. Williams, that it would be proved that other persons slept occasionally under the tent. Why is not the countess Oldi produced, if she was the person? But if she required protection, why not do that which was done at Aum, have hammocks round the tent to protect her from danger, or the intrusion of the crew? Nothing so easy—but no, that would not answer the purpose. Bergami must sleep under the tent—the travelling bed or the sofa is the place where he is to repose; and because they are about three feet asunder, and because in the morning when they are seen the princess is dressed and Bergami in his Greek robe—all this is to be considered innocent, and you are asked to infer that nothing improper took place, and that for five weeks her royal highness can sleep under the same tent with a man for no other reason than that she preferred his society! Your lordships are asked in the case of a princess, and a menial servant, to believe there was no 1294 impropriety, no indecency, no illicit intercourse during that period, and lieutenant Hownam is the witness to prove it! "Oh!" say my learned friends, "you rely on lieut. Hownam's belief on this occasion—if you take his belief, take it with his account of the impression on his mind." My lords, lieut. Hownam's "belief" is not our case; but it is a confirmation of the positive evidence on the part of the bill of Gargiulo, Paturzo, Demont, Mejani, and Birollo, against whom not the slightest imputation has been cast, nor a contradiction attempted to be given. No one has ventured to contradict it, except lieut. Flinn, who attempted it at first, and said, he did not know where Bergami slept, and that he has no belief on the subject. Mr. Flinn having broken down on his cross-examination, and lieut. Hownam having proved the case for the bill, they are tired of the witnesses. They then make a diversion—they call for Restelli, and then you hear no more of the case for five or six days. They were sick of Flinn—they found that he would not stand the cross-examination, and Hownam let out too much. And then neither Schiavini, Carlini, the countess Oldi, Mariette, nor Hieronimus, every one of whom could have spoken to the transaction, are called—they are kept snug at Brandenburgh-house, and your lordships are never to be favoured with the sight of any one of them—and my learned friends find fault with us for not calling witnesses. We have called five witnesses to the fact; they call nobody to contradict it, and then they say the proof is not sufficient. I say if the case is not true, you might contradict it by five witnesses, not one whom you produce. The absence of that contradiction proves the evidence of our witnesses; and, if that case is proved, there is an end of all cavil, all doubt, all hesitation, on the subject; because, whatever other parts of the case are affected, this stands; and if so, it adds the greatest confirmation to the other parts of the case—for, undoubtedly, if adultery was carried on for five weeks under that tent, there is an end of the uncertainty and improbability of its continuing elsewhere; and when you find them in the same habits of friendship (if it can be so called) I say, the polacre case not only establishes her royal highness's guilt there, but it corroborates and strengthens every part of the case against her. Need I at present dwell longer on the scenes on board the polacre.

1295 But there was one fact which my learned friends, with great adroitness and care, kept out of your lordships view. The transactions of St. Bartholomew's day are never mentioned by my learned friends. That day is celebrated throughout the ship in a manner which shows the connection between her royal highness and Bergami. I say it needs no comment. Her royal highness is seen walking on deck, arm in arm with Bergami, the crew are regaled, the ship is illuminated, the cry is, "Long live the Princess! Long live Bartholomew! Long live the Chevalier!" The only one whose birth-day is celebrated—it is celebrated on board ship, and for two years it is kept as a day of festivity and mirth. Her royal highness parades the deck, arm in arm, with him, and yet Mr. Hownam cannot recollect the date of that fact, it was so usual it made no impression upon his memory. Does this fact speak nothing? does it not evince—a degree of friendship I cannot call it—but of connexion between these parties? Can any man doubt that that fact shows most strongly, not only what was the estimation in which this man was held, but the degree of familiarity and intercourse existing between these persons? But this is so immaterial a fact, that it has not been noticed—notwithstanding the industry which every body could not but admire, and the ingenuity, of Mr. Denman, who went through the case—except when he made a jump over what had passed on the voyage to Genoa. Mr. Brougham jumped over the polacre case—which Mr. Williams (who said it was by accident) as well as Dr. Lushington and Mr. Denman came to at onec—they said it was the case of all others which they wished to grapple with—and yet the festivities of St. Bartholomew's day are wholly omitted from the facts on which they comment! My lords, it would be absurd to dwell longer on this. That omission was designed—they knew they could grapple with the fact—they knew it reflected light on the other parts of the case; but their ingenuity was employed to keep your lordships minds free from what had passed before, and therefore, then, did they argue, that as no guilt was proved before her royal highness went on board, that case was not sufficient to establish the guilt—but, when you look on all the transactions on board the polacre, if you could doubt about what passed under the tent, 1296 you could have no doubt about the other facts spoken to by the other witnesses.

Did her royal highness bathe on board? She did—that is proved by Gargiulo, Paturzo, Majoochi, and Demont. But then it is supposed on that point we have a contradiction to Majoochi, with respect to the bath on board the ship. He states, that on one occasion he carried water for the bath, which was taken in the cabin. Demont confirms Majoochi, even though: she is not precise as to the place where it was taken. She speaks to two occasions—she cannot state whether it was in the outer or inner cabin. But then we are to have recourse to measure, and lieut. Flinn is called to show, that in a cabin of ten feet and a half, a bathing tub of six feet could not be placed! I think, my lords, it is hardly necessary for me to comment upon lieut. Flinn's evidence, because, after what took place in your lordships presence, upon the testimony of that unfortunate officer (for so I will call him), I think your lordships will be of opinion, that no reliance whatever can be placed upon the testimony which he gives in support of her majesty's defence.

But, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, says, "What inference is to be drawn from his taking a paper from his pocket, and swearing three different ways as to the hand-writing of that paper—first, that it was his own—afterwards, that it was Pasquali's—and, by one of those accidents that do fall out on these occasions, having a document by me which had been given by Schiavini as a recommendation of one of our witnesses, by comparing that with the paper produced by lieut. Flinn, I had not the least doubt whose the writing was. My learned friend put the question to him, and out came the answer at once, as if a thunder-bolt had struck him, that it was Schiavini's hand-writing. Why, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, forgot the eloquence displayed towards the con clusion of Mr. Brougham's speech. I have no doubt it has not been effaced from your lordships memory—it never will from mine—how beautifully he descanted on the importance of slight contradictions. We were referred even to Holy Writ to prove his theory; and yet, my lords, when it comes to be applied to their own wit ness, "Oh dear; that is an immaterial cir cumstance—it is true he has made a mistake, he has sworn it was Pasquali's writing, and then his own;" and though it 1297 comes out by the most accidental circumstance that ever took place in a court of justice, that it is Schiavini's. Then my learned friend's eloquence is forgotten, and they turn round and say, "it was an accidental detection, and from such an accident we are afraid to produce any other evidence before you." My lords, it was one of those detections which has not occurred on the other side. My lords, the fact Mr. Brougham was commenting on, was the answer of Sacchi, as to the tumult at Dover—a fact as immaterial to your lordships inquiry as the paper, and more so; because this was a paper to refresh his memory, but on that occasion Sacchi's evidence was to be destroyed on that which he afterwards explained. But lieut. Flinn's evidence is to be propped up as that of an English sailor, an English lieutenant, whose honour ought to be as dear to him as his life—the arguments are not to be applied to him, but they are to be applied to an Italian because he is an Italian. Let us not be led away by such attempts to delude us from the real state of the case. I say lieut. Flinn on that occasion was asked to that paper over and over again. He could not have a doubt by whom it was written, I say, therefore, whether he wilfully, or by mistake, gave the evidence he did, on either ground you cannot believe that man as a witness in support of her majesty's defence.

But, my lords, answers were extorted from him by some of your lordships, which carried your conviction, not to say of the imperfection of his memory, but that you could not rely on his testimony, when he was examined as to the situation of the binnacle, and the light it threw into the tent when he drew it up to answer questions put to him by her royal highness. Why, my lords, the whole of his evidence on that subject, which is too long for me to recapitulate, shows, that with respect to that fact of the binnacle, as well as with respect to the letters, he was swearing most rashly, and that the light could not, in the position in which be placed it, have reflected into the tent in the manner he stated, and the reason for not having a light on deck was so strong, that it was impossible to be at the different places he was, without seeing the defect in the binnacle, which he could have remedied at little trouble and expense. Did it throw light into the tent? No; for lieut. Hownam when he went 1298 up accidentally after the tent was closed, found it dark. And I beg your lordships to recollect, that he stated it was impossible to get out on deck, because the tent came to the combings of the hatchway. I admit that, I believe it to be the fact—because Gargiulo and Paturzo tell you, that after the Queen and Bergami had retired, and the light was put Out, the tent was closed by Bergami, and closed, I believe you will think, in such a way as to exclude the observation and intrusion of persons on deck. But lieutenant Hownam felt he ought not to intrude into the tent, after that time—it was not merely because her royal highness was there, but he believed Bergami slept there; and it was because Bergami and her royal highness were there, that he did not intrude. That Bergami did sleep there is sworn by Gargiulo, Paturzo, Majoochi, Demont, and Mejani; and in consequence of a squall, on one occasion the water came over the deck, and her royal highness was seen to be conducted below by Bergami—lieut. Hownam says by Flinn; but he did not go below, because his attendance was necessary on the deck; and therefore I believe the fact to be, that Bergami and her royal highness descended the ladder together. Whether Flinn was with him or not, is immaterial—the fact is proved, and lieutenant Hownam tells you that as one cause of his belief, that on that occasion the princess and Bergami descended the ladder together.

Now, my lords, with respect to the bath—if Demont and Majoochi are believed, the bath was taken by her royal highness below the deck—I care not in which room, that is immaterial; the main fact is, that Bergami was present at the time she took the bath—whether therefore it was in the dining cabin, or in the sleeping cabin, can make no difference. The transaction speaks for itself, because the presence of no man could have been endured by a woman, between whom and herself the last favour had not been enjoyed. But here, Bergami is the favoured person to be present. It is almost impossible to talk of this fact in any terms which ought to be applied to it—I will not do it—it is too indelicate—it is too offensive—it must strike every one, if it is true, it proves the case—if fake, the countess Oldi, Mariette and other persons on board might have been called to prove that Bergami was not present when that bathing took place. But no such persons are cal- 1299 led. The fact of bathing is proved by Gargiulo, Paturzo, Majoochi, and Demont. And as to Hownam's opinion and Flinn's belief, you will place no reliance on that. With respect to the former, you have only his opinion. The question therefore, is, whether Majoochi is to be believed, or whether Hownam is? But I say, the material fact is, that the bathing did take place, that Bergami was there at the bathing; and whether it be in the dining or sleeping cabin, is as immaterial as any fact in the case.

My lords; let me call for a moment your lordships attention to the circumstances attending Majoochi's evidence. I have heard, with some surprise, that Majoochi and Demont are persons not to be credited; and the arguments with respect to Majoochi, are those answers which were given by him, that he "did not recollect," or "did not know" particular facts; and from those answers my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, argues, that all his credit is destroyed, and that he is not worthy to be contradicted in the case. I would not venture to apply my learned friend's arguments on the subject to their English witnesses, but I call them in aid to apply them to their testimony; because, if his argument is correct, there is hardly a witness of his who might not be attacked on the same ground. But Majoochi was cross-examined; once he was had up upon information, which so opportunely arises to my learned friend on all occasions as to something which had occurred to him in Gloucestershire. Your lordships will recollect the period, as you will recollect the other periods of diversion in this case—it was after Paturzo and Gargiulo had been examined—the case pressed—they must make a diversion in your lordships minds, and in the minds of the public—they must expose him to another cross-examination to destroy his credit, and damn his testimony. We are amused with his being in Gloucestershire, and with his being in a coach, and with his conversations with this man, that man, and the other a cross-examination which "tortured"—that is the expression applied to my learned friend the solicitor-general. Mr. Brougham's cross-examination truly is no torture at all—his manner, his look, is so delightful, that the witnesses approach your lordships bar with the greatest delight and pleasure to undergo a cross-examination from him! Majoochi looked a little alarmed, as well he might. 1300 We heard in the papers, and at the bar, of Flinn's fatigue—that he had undergone a long examination in chief in a hot room, and that it was too much for him. But, Majoochi was under examination in chief a day and a half—he was then cross-examined a day and a half—he was had up a second time as to those conversations—and then, at the conclusion of our case, when the solicitor-general was about to sum up, and when therefore it was necessary again to make a little agreeable diversion in the case, he was cross-examined again, because they had discovered that he had been at Carlton-house; they examined him to Gavazzi and Visetti, who have been ordered to attend this house; letters were produced, and he was supposed to be able to write, when he swore he could only write his name. That will not do—he is called up a fourth time, in the course of the defence, in order that another contradiction might be proved against him by Carrington, who received such a eulogy from Mr. Denman. Their witnesses are of spotless purity, but Majoochi's non mi ricordos are at once to destroy his testimony and credit, because my learned friend, by an ingenuity of artifice which did him credit as an advocate, but which had little effect on your lordships minds, extort that answer, non mi ricordo, which Omati, that accomplished witness called by them, had had a hint not to use. Where are all the contradictions to Majoochi's evidence? What is become of Mrs. Hughes, and all the family which he was desirous to marry at Gloucester? of Johnson, who was in the stage coach? what has become of Gavazzi, and of Visetti, the lacquey de place, who showed him about London, and pointed out the sights worth seeing? They are summoned, but not one is produced at the bar! Nay, some of them have had an inspection of Majoochi, to identify him: they do not prove he was the man with whom the conversation took place in the stage coach. I say, my learned friends felt the effect of Majoochi's evidence—they knew that, notwithstanding the non mi ricordos, though they might amuse the public for a moment, when his testimony came to be examined, it must be tried by this test—whether the facts can be contradicted or not. Finding that, they cross-examine him three or four times—and, my lords, recollect the manner in which my learned friend dismissed him the third time. He said they should not want him again. But 1301 they find Carrington, and then Majoochi is to be called again to be contradicted by that man of veracity, who was "born a gentleman," as Mr. Denman stated. My lords, it is my duty to examine the conduct of witnesses, and the manner in which they depose; and if they can point out from Majoochi's evidence, any such contradictions as exist in the evidence of Carrington, I will resign Majoochi to his fate. But, when I come to show you Carrington's evidence, which I must do, I will prove to you such contradictions, such evasions, as must satisfy you, that you cannot rely on the testimony he gives. What is the fact to which he attempts to depose? Why, that at Ruffinelli, in the servants hall, Majoochi began to talk of baron Ompteda, and on the following day not satisfied with the oration in the kitchen, he makes a speech in the court-yard, while they are preparing the carriage to go to Rome Trifling circumstances are to beat-tended to in this case. I do not rely on this as a fact to shew Carrington's evidence is not true; but it is a fact—he says, Ruflinelli is only four miles from Rome, so short a distance, that though it is all up-hill, they were not above three quarters of an hour, or an hour going, and that Ruffinelli is nearer than Frescati. Is that true? What docs Carlo Forti say—that it is twelve miles all up hill, and, as I understood him that Frescati is nearer than Ruffinelli. My lords, this is a fact in the case; and when we are trying evidence, we must look a little at minute facts—much more simple facts have been brought against us, and therefore I trust I shall be excused for doing that.

But he states a conversation with sir John Beresford on the occasion of his being on board ship. What were his answers when examined on that part of the case? My lords, you will find them at page 591: "Were you in any other ship in his majesty's" service than the Poictiers?" "No."—"Have you any certificate from sir John Beresford of your service under his command?" "I had it, but I have not it now."—"Do you mean to say you have lost it?" "I have."—"But you are certain you received a certificate?" "I am."—"Were you rated a midshipman on board the Poictiers?" "I was."—"How long?" "I do not know rightly how long—I suppose during the time I was there." Now, my lords, mark the next question; which points to facts which cannot be for- 1302 gotten.—A man who has served on board a ship, must know the name of the ship—if he has served on board of many, he cannot answer that he has served on board one. "What situation had you served in before you were on board the Poictiers as a midshipman?" "I had been at sea in the merchant service when I was a boy—then I had been on land, and got my livelihood in the best way I could."—"You are to be understood that you were never in his majesty's service before?" "No," he says. Now, these questions must have brought it to his recollection. They are not like the questions of Mr. Brougham to extort a non mi ricordo—they are questions to facts which he had some motives to conceal. He did not know the evidence could be procured to show he had spoken to untruths, and therefore, for some reason or other, he disguised the truth. He is asked afterwards, "Are you to be understood to have joined the Poictiers as a midshipman capable of doing your immediate duty, or as a youngster?" "I went with sir John Beresford on board the Poictiers."—"Do you mean that you entered as a youngster to learn your duty, or did you go upon the quarter-deck of that ship, as a positively effective midshipman?" "I did not go upon the quarter-deck for some time, but I understood" now, my fords mark, "I understood I was to be a midshipman."—"Are you positively sure that from the time you joined the Poictiers you were rated midshipman?" "I am not certain whether I was rated at the time or not, I was rated at the time I left it, which I saw upon my ticket."—"You are perfectly clear in your own mind that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than at your own request?" "No thing else."^*

Now, my lords, after that, he is examined again. In page 693, he is reminded of those answers, which I am sure left the impression on your lordships minds that the man had been on board no other ship but the Poictiers that he had been employed by land and in the merchant ser vice before. He says, "I understood the question to apply to my having been with sir John Beresford as midshipman; I had been in other ships before." Now, my lords, how was that possible? he had not been asked about his being a mid shipman at the time the first question was ^* See p. 404 of the present Volume. 1303 put to him. The question was, "Were you in any other ship in his majesty's service than the Poictiers?" (not as to his employment; but as to the fact) "I understood the question to apply to my having been with sir John Beresford. "Do you think this explanation satisfactory? But, if you do, let me carry your lordships attention to what he swears upon that occasion had passed between him and sir John Beresford on board the Poictiers; for in the next page he is asked, "You have stated, in reply to a question in page 588,—'Why did you leave the navy?'—that you did not like the sea, and sir John Beresford got you your discharge?" "Yes."—"You were asked, 'You are perfectly clear in your own mind that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than at your own, request?' to which you answered, 'Nothing else'?" "Yes,"—"How long had that dislike to the sea been upon you?"—Now, my lords, mark the answer:—"I had often been promised promotion, to get a gunner's warrant; but I never got it during the time I was in the Majestic When I came into the Poictiers, I was also told that I should have promotion, but I never got it till the latter part, when sir John told me I was to be upon the quarterdeck. 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 quarterdeck; that I would wish to leave the service, if it could be got."^* Why, my lords, is this a fact which a man can have forgotten? If such a conversation took place could a man be mistaken about the fact? Could such a conversation have taken place? Why, my lords, when I come to call your attention to sir John Beresford's evidence, you will find, so far from that being the fact, that it was because sir W. Gell had desired to take him into his service; and, therefore, as a means of getting him out of the navy, there was a contrivance to get him on the books for a few days as a midshipman on board the Poictiers, and then he was transferred to the This be to get his discharge. But here is a conversation sworn to, on which no man could make a mistake. Fortunately for the ends of justice, sir John Beresford was called at the instance of some noble lord. My lords, I say it is not very usual—I never saw it before:—it may be right—to your lordships. deci- ^* See p. 491, of the present Volume. 1304 sion I bend—but I never heard of witnesses being called to support witnesses, merely because there had been an inconsistency in their testimony—I never yet heard of it—I believe it would have been somewhat of a surprise on my learned friends, if I had proposed to call persons to speak to their belief as to the conduct and character——

The House adjourned during pleasure.—When the House was resumed, the Attorney General proceeded as follows:—