Lords Sitting of 28 October 1820

Preamble
Mr. Attorney Generalcontinued:—
My lords; when I closed my observations last evening, I believe I had brought down the evidence to the end of what has been termed "the long voyage." But, my lords, I had omitted to observe, that in the course of that journey, her royal high
* See p. 674 of the present volume.
1306
ness had at Jerusalem conferred upon several of those of her suite, an honour or an order which she herself had there instituted. My lords, this circumstance appears to have excited the ridicule and pleasantry of my learned friends on the other side, and they have considered that circumstance as alleged in the preamble of this bill, as a substantive charge against her majesty. My lords, it is only alleged as one of those circumstances out of which arose that presumption and that conclusion, to which the whole of her conduct leads; and however much my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, might attempt; to turn into pleasantry that diploma which was produced by Mr. Hownam, yet I cannot but think your lordships will see, that it affords matter of grave observation and comment my lords, it is not the institution of the order, but it is the singular circumstance, that Bergami, the favoured Bergami, is so distinguished upon that occasion. And, my lords, upon what occasion is it that this is instituted? It is stated, that "her royal highness institutes and creates a new order to recompense the faithful knights who have had the honour of accompanying her on her pilgrimage to the Holy Land." My lords, I wish to make no severe comments or reflections upon her royal highness, except what arise out of the facts of this case; but your lordships will recollect, that it has been proved by Demont (and no witness has attempted to contradict her), that though from the expression of "a pilgrimage to the Holy Land," one should have imagined some religious feelings I had entered into the minds of her royal highness, yet, from the period of her leaving Genoa, your lordships will find that in the household of the princess, upon the threshold of being Queen of this country, during the whole of that period, that was omitted in the establishment of her royal highness, which, I say, ought never to be omitted in such an establishment—the performance of divine service, according to the established religion of this country by her, and by her Protestant attendants. Your lordships find that this infatuated passion not only led her to omit that, but to accompany this favoured man to those places of worship which he attended according to the belief and persuasion that he professed; but neglected the performance of that religious service which it was a most imperative duty upon a person in her situation to have kept up in her family.

1307
My lords; what is this order which is established to commemorate this event? The grand mastership of this order is confered upon a person who is, for the first time, dignified by her royal highness by the title of "colonel Bartholomew Pergami," a man who had never been advanced beyond the situation of quarter-master, corresponding with the rank of Serjeant in our military establishment "Colonel Bartholomew Pergami, baron of Francina, knight of Malta, and of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, equerry of her royal highness"—he is to be the grand master, and however ridiculous it may appear, yet this order is to remain in his family "from generation to generation for ever;" and your lordships will find, that this Diploma* is signed by her royal highness and by Bergami, who there assumes to himself that title which is for the first time assigned to him by her royal highness. My lords, I say that that is an important fact. It is one of those facts in this case, which, more than any comment, prove the familiarity which existed between her royal highness and this person. Why was this man to be distinguished above all others upon this pilgrimage? Had lie done any thing more than the rest of the suite? Oh yes! he had, my lords—he was her protector under her tent at Aum, and he was her protector on the voyage from Jaffa, from Capo d'Anza! that is the reason why the grand mastership is conferred upon him—that is the only reason—so far as I can see, which can be assigned for the distinction—and that being the reason, I leave the fact to your lordships without further comment.
My lords; I will not stay to comment upon the parting at Terracina. An attempt is made to beat down the evidence of Majoochi upon that occasion; because, forsooth, he has shown that that parting was in the cabin, and because it is shewn, that, upon deck, when the other persons in the suite took leave of her royal highness, a different mode of salutation was observed from that in the cabin.
My lords; after the return from that voyage, her royal highness repaired again to the Villa d'Este; and it is in evidence, that after that return, an alteration was made in the apartments of the Villa d'Este—an alteration again which had no other object than to facilitate the communication between her royal highness's sleep-
* See a copy of the Diploma at p. 973.
1308
ing apartment and that of Bergami; that I appears in Majoochi's examination, and in that of Demont; but I call your lordships attention to that fact, on account of the I opening of my learned friend, Mr. Williams, on this part of the case. They felt it necessary to account for this alteration; for unless they did so, the necessary conclusion to be drawn, was that which was to be drawn from the other facts of the case; and my learned friend opened to your lordships, that that alteration was in; consequence of the former room smoaking, and that to shorten the access to it a new door was opened. My lords, they have had Giarolini, the architect here, but they give no evidence to explain this,; though it was felt to be a case requiring explanation, and which they stated they: should give. They have failed to give it; and what other inference can you draw from their failure in this case, than that! they found that their witness would not come up to the mark? I say, therefore, I that the evidence stands as it did. The: alteration was made, and it was made for the purpose I have mentioned.
I will not now detain you by further I observations upon what passed at the Villa d'Este; but there is one fact which occurred after the return from the long voyage, upon which my learned friends have never ventured to produce a single witness, though it might be contradicted by a host, if not true. I mean what occurred at Barlisina, a place midway between Milan and the Villa d'Este, proved by Galli. He states, that her royal highness coming to the inn at Barlisina, dined there, and that at dinner, in the presence of the company, he saw that they paid compliments to each other; that they took some delicate morsels and offered to each other, and that after the dinner, her royal highness and the baron retired to a room, and after the company had retired, he saw the baron go up and give her a kiss, but he did not enter the room, for they told him immediately to go away.* The answer which Mr. Williams gives to this, is, that a material part of that case is proved to have passed in the presence of the man alone. But those familiarities at the dinner took place in the presence of the whole suite, which at that time was composed, with the exception of Mr. Hownam, entirely of Italians, principally of Bergami's family. My
* See Vol. 2, p. 1259.

1309
lords, that fact is not ventured to be contradicted; the man's character is not ventured to be attacked. Notwithstanding the invectives we have heard—notwithstanding the imputations of perjury which have been so prodigally heaped upon all these witnesses—notwithstanding all the time they had had for inquiry, and all the means which have been afforded to them for procuring witnesses—there is not a person of respectability, from Como, or from Milan, or from the places where they reside, who ventures to say, that those persons are not as credible as any of those who have been produced on the other side. I say, then, my lords, you must consider that case as established; and if it be established, if that familiarity did exist, I may call in aid the candid admission of my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, that one such fact as this proved, shews to demonstration what the result of the case must be. For, my lords, in observing upon what took place on board the polacre, he says, with respect to the evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo, of the sitting upon the gun, and what took place upon that occasion, that sitting upon a gun with the arms entwined, is such an act as leaves nothing to the imagination except the granting of the last purposes of desire. Then, my lords, I have it from my learned friends admission, that any one of those acts of familiarity cannot exist between persons, except where the granting of the last purposes of desire has been afforded. If, then, I establish only one of those acts of familiarity between these parties, it explains the whole of the case. I say, with respect to that case on board the polacre, it is established by testimony which has not been atttempted to be contradicted. I say, also, that in this case of Barlisina, the fact is established by the evidence of Galli.
My lords; we then come to that part of the evidence which relates to the tour into Germany; and here, setting out with their case at Scharnitz, said my learned friend Mr. Williams, "thank God, is a triumphant case for her majesty—here is a case which will be entirely contradicted." My lords, now let me examine what was the case at Scharnitz? What was the evidence given by Demont? Upon their arrival a difficulty had arisen with respect to the passports. Her royal highness was therefore obliged to remain at Scharnitz during the remainder of the
1310
day on which she arrived, the following night, and until the following morning. Demont states to you, that at the inn she retired to the same room in which her royal highness reposed; that at a late hour in the night, Bergami returned, having procured the proper passports at Ins-pruck; that she was ordered by her majesty to retire from the room; and that Bergami was left there for a considerable time. What was my learned friend, Mr. Brougham's, opening upon this? Because, when I am charged with having opened facts not proved, let us see a little how that observation applies to my learned friends. My lords, I have copied it from the short-hand notes of Mr. Brougham's opening: "I will prove, that the moment the passports were brought, the preparations for the journey commenced—that her majesty set off within an hour and a half; that that time was scarcely sufficient to pack up and prepare for travelling, and that during the whole time the Queen's door was hardly, ever shut." How stands the proof, my lords? They have adduced that of lieut. Hownam and Vassali. It was pledged by Mr. Williams, that they should have three witnesses to contradict this evidence, but there are only two; I can guess that the third was the countess Oldi; but, for some reason or other (upon which a word by-and-by) the countess is not produced. My lords, I do think that there never was so extraordinary a contradiction between two witnesses. Says Hownam, the luggage never was on the carriages unpacked; t there were no preparations to be made in the house; and all the preparations Vassali speaks of, were the preparations made out of doors by clearing the snow. But his account is this—if you believe it—that after his return from In-spruck, he went into her majesty's room—he does not venture to say, that her majesty was not undressed, but he says that her majesty was "covered with shalls or something like it"† no answer whether she was dressed or undressed. Demont does not state whether she was wholly undressed or not; she says part of her clothes were taken off. But I ask again, is this case to be determined by such trifles as these? Is it to be stated, that a man may remain in the bed-room of a female for hours without any imputation cast upon them, and that man a ser-
* See p. 199 of the present Volume.
† See p. 528 of the present Volume.
‡ See p. 939 of the present Volume.

1311
vant, because that female was seen on the bed resting, and it is not known whether she was dressed or undressed With respect to the period which elapsed, was it only for an hour and a half? You saw how lieut. Hownam and Vassali shuffled upon that subject—they did not venture to state at what hour they started; but it appears, that they did not set out till broad day-light in the month of March. And I ask your lordships whether that does not correspond with the account that Demont gives? for it appears, even by Vassali's evidence, that they did not set out till after breakfast. Then I asked him—and your lordships will recollect the answer—whether he was not fatigued with his journey? but he says an officer who has performed campaigns was not to be tired so. He remained up from half past two on his return, till they set oat at day-light, and his whole occupation appears to have been in walking from the passage to the princess's room, and back again, without any motive, until the moment that they actually set out; for then, he says, that he carried her something to eat. Upon examination by your lordships that turned out to be the breakfast between five and six o'clock; therefore it did not occur till three or four hours after he returned. Then for what other purpose did be go"? he gives this answer": "A person is not easy—he is always in movement when he is obliged to wait upon a personage of that quality; a person is in eternal movement."*My lords, I say this is a most singular reason; and if this is a triumphant contradiction of Demont, I must confess I. know not where the triumph is; for it appears to me, that in substance both Vassali and Hownam have confirmed the account she gave.
So much, my lords, as to the case at Scharnitz. I now come to a more important case what occurred at Garlsruhe, and I beg your lordships to examine it carefully, to see whether my observations upon it are well warranted by the evidence; and if they are, I think that case stands as firm now that the case for the defence is closed, as it did at the time when the case for the bill was ended. My lords, what occurred at Carlsruhe Those remarkable occurrences at Carlsruhe are proved by Barbara Kress: she proves, that upon one evening which she does not precisely fix, she went to carry water to
* See p. 945 of the present Volume.
1312
the bed-room of Bergami. Your lordships recollect the situation of the bedrooms at Carlsruhe—Bergami's bed-room was No. 12 with a communication to No. 10, through the dining-room, which was No. 11, both the bed-rooms opening into that dining-room; so that at night, or by day the communication between the two rooms was perfectly open. Is that true, or is it not? Throughout the whole of this case, I am not aware of a single instance, or not more than one, as to which an attempt has been made to deny the disposition of the rooms, although it was opened at every place which her royal highness and Bergami visited; and therefore your lordships are bound to believe that the disposition of the rooms at Carlsruhe is that which has been stated. Undoubtedly that was important. But though you have had Vassali and Hownam called, there is no question put to them upon that subject. My lords, what is the account given by this witness? She states that a broad bed was put into No. 12, before the arrival of the princess; that upon one evening between seven and eight o'clock, she had occasion to carry water to the room, No. 12. She does not remember where the princess and Bergami had dined on that day. Upon her carrying the water into the room, No. 12, she saw Bergami and the princess; Bergami was in bed, and the princess sitting on the bed.
Mr. Denman—She had sat upon the bed.
Mr. Attorney General—I was going to observe upon that. It appears that the princess was sitting upon the bed at the time she entered: "I saw she had jumped up"—it is obvious that that must mean, that she jumped up in consequence of the surprise occasioned by the entrance of the chambermaid. Could you see whether Pergami had his clothes on or off?" "I could not see that; but I had seen as much in the moment I entered as that the arm was white; I had seen that Pergami had his arm round the neck of the princess; and when I entered, the princess let the arm fall."* The princess then jumped up; the female, astonished herself to witness such a scene, immediately retired.
Now, my lords, as to this part of the case, how is it attempted to be met by evidence? It is attempted to be met in this
* See Vol. 2, p. 970.

1313
way—by accounting, if possible, for every minute during the time her royal highness remained at Carlsruhe—that is the attempt made, by way of contradiction, and to show that the account given by Barbara Kress cannot be true. What says Mr. Hownam? He is asked "whether her royal highness did not pass the greater part of her time at court, or in retirement, whilst she was there?" "Almost always at court, or in the family of the grand duke. Her royal highness usually dined at the court, or at the margravine's the grand duke's mother, and she usually supped out." He is asked, "whether there were any parties assembled on those occasions to meet her royal highness Always, except the first day's dinner at the margravine's."* That is the evidence on the part of Mr. Hownam in his examination in chief. Some questions were alter-wards put by some of your lordships—"You have said that, at Carlsruhe the princess dined with the grand duke, did you dine in company with her on that occasion?" "I did."—"At what o'clock at that court is the dinner?" "I positively cannot recollect that."—" About what hour?" "I do not recollect the hour sufficiently to be able to mark it; evening parties lasted late in the night, probably twelve o'clock."—"Can you say whether the princess had time to return home between dinner and supper?" "I should imagine yes."—"Did she, on any one of those days, return home between the dinner and the supper?" "I do not recollect that." †
Then, my lords, with respect to lieut. Hownam, there is no contradiction at all. All he states is, a general recollection that they dined on every day but one, with the margravine; that her royal highness usually dined out; but he will not undertake to say, that there was not ample time for her royal highness to return between the dinner and the supper, and we know there was by Vassali's evidence. But so far from accounting for the time her royal highness was there, he leaves it quite a blank, as your lordships would expect a person should do, called to speak to a period of six days.
To fill up that blank, they call Vassali. My lords, observe, in his examination in chief he limits the precise day on which they arrived at Carlsruhe, the 25th of
* See p. 507 of the present Volume.
† See p. 550 of the present Volume.
1314
March. Observe the manner in which this is proved by him, upon the examination in chief, and contrast it afterwards with his memory on other transactions; for at Carlsruhe, he knows precisely the day of their arrival; he knows precisely what took place on every day they were there, every minute he will attempt to account for—and yet, on the cross-examination by myself, you will find his memory so defective, that he cannot point out by it what they did at Munich or at Nuremburg [The Attorney General here read the examination of Vassali, which will be found at p. 938]. Why, my lords, I say, I cannot help entertaining great suspicion, that he had been seeing the evidence of Barbara Kress upon this subject, by some means or other—his memory was to be refreshed as to Carlsruhe, beyond that with respect to any other part of the journey; for, now let me call your lordships attention to his cross-examination, at page 942, and the following pages [The Attorney General here read the cross-examination of Vassali, which will be found at p. 943]. Then, when he comes to Carlsruhe, he is as precise as ever, from the 25th to the 30th, and not only the day and the hour, but he states as to every minute, how the time was spent by her royal highness during the whole time she was there. When he is asked, "What makes you remember so precisely where you dined every day when you were at Carlsruhe, and you cannot recollect where you dined when you were at Munich? "He says, "a man may remember one thing, and may not remember another, without being able to assign any cause."
My lords; I recollect how this was argued by my learned friend, Mr. Denman, attending as I did, and as every body did, to his most admirable speech to your lordships. "Oh! nothing so natural," he says, "as that, at Carlsruhe, he should recollect the circumstance of his dining with such high personages as the grand duke and the margravine." These are circumstances fixed for ever in the memory of such a man as Vassali, but, unfortunately, when they dine with the king of Bavaria at Baden, he cannot tell you how often he dined, or how often he did not there, though he can tell you every day at Carlsruhe when he was in company with the margravine and the grand duke, and can account for every minute of the time of her royal highness! In

1315
scrutinizing facts of this kind, your lordships must scrutinize the manner in which the testimony is given—and not only the manner in which the evidence is given as to the facts attempted to be contradicted, but with respect to the other parts of the case deposed to. They attempt to say it was on the second night, and the second night only; for that that was the night when he was ill, and therefore probably in bed. He tells you, that on that evening the Queen remained with the grand duchess. And where did he remain? Why, my lords, most likely, in another part of the apartments with other persons. And he states in the same page, that the inn at Carlsruhe from the grand duke's palace, is not above three minutes riding in a carriage, and that the margravine's palace from the inn, is nearer than that of the grand duke. Then, I ask your lordships, whether you are not satisfied, that it was not only possible, but probable, that her royal highness did return between the time of the dinner, and the evening's amusement. This is not contradicted by this witness; and if you are to rely upon the positive oath of Barbara Kress, that this did take place, whether upon that evening or any other, there is no contradiction upon the evidence of lieut. Hownaro, and Vassali. As to Hownam, he does not attempt to account for these remarkable circumstances which stick so fast in the memory of Vassali, and Vassali does not attempt to swear that her royal highness might not return to the inn in that interval. Barbara Kress is not precise as to the hour, as it is not to be expected she should be. You have, therefore, the positive evidence of Kress, met only by the belief of Vassali. Then, I say, you are bound to give credit to Kress, and if you do, then I have a case which, with reference to Mr. Brougham's admission as to the situation of the princess on board the polacre, is decisive. If a woman is seen with a man in bed, with his arm round her neck, there is nothing left to inference as to the act committed; and we have ample evidence as to that fact, in what took place under the tent at Aum on board the polacre, and elsewhere.
Now, my lords, let us examine Barbara Kress's evidence, to another fact to which my learned friends offer no contradiction, but as to which, contradiction was in their power., I allude to the fact of her
1316
finding a cloak in Bergami's bed. "Did you, when you were making up the bed in Bergami's room, discover any thing upon the bed?" "In the bed I have found a cloak.''—" Was that a cloak appearing to belong to a female?" "Probably, because behind, it had a kind of hood"—"What did you do with that cloak?" "I took it out and unfolded it. It was of silk, the colour grey. A servant took it out of my hand. I have seen a cloak the next day upon the princess, but I cannot say that it was the same. It was of the same colour. It was likewise silk; and? it had such a hood."* Now, my learned friends cross-examined upon this, and an important cross-examination it was. The drift of it was to show, that she handed this cloak to a servant, who was a jager, as he is described, a person dressed in green. My learned friends knew the servant; therefore they examine to that: "When you say, when they had left it, do you not mean to represent only, when whoever had slept in it had left it?" "In No. 12? or where do you mean. In No. 12? As much as I know, I know that the gentleman slept there, and I went to make the gentleman's bed."—Was there or not any body else in the room at the time you made it?" "There was nobody in the room, except a servant in a green coat, who came into the room to assist me in turning the mattress."—"Who was the servant in green?" "I can-not tell you this: there were two of them; I never saw them before, only at the time when the princess was there. I have seen none of them since she left it."—" Was one of them a jäger?" "I do not know this—one of them had a green coat; but whether he was a jäger, I have not questioned him."† My lords, I say, that this is a case, therefore, which my learned friends might have contradicted. Was there not a jäger, a person dressed in green, accompanying her royal highness upon that occasion? They might have produced the servants who were with her, if this fact were not so. Had her royal highness such a cloak as that does not Madame Oldi, or any one of the servants, know whether she had such a cloak? I say, therefore, with respect to. Barbara Kress, she has challenged contradiction by this fact to which she speaks. It is a fact in which they might have con-
* See Vol. 2, p. 972.
† See Vol. 2, p. 1081.

1317
tradicted her better than they have attempted to contradict the other part of the case by the memory of Mr. Vassali. They have not dared to call any person to prove it was not the princess's cloak; and if it was, what is the inference from that circumstance? How came the princess's cloak in Bergami's bed? How came that cloak to be afterwards seen worn by her royal highness? Is there any attempt made to account for this? Then, if this stands uncontradicted upon the testimony of Kress, not only does it stand as an important fact in itself, but it confirms her evidence as to the other part of the case.
My lords; she speaks to another fact, which I will only barely allude to, because it is disgusting to dwell upon it—I mean, the marks upon the bed; and my learned friend, Mr. Denman, ventured to state, that the manner in which she gave her evidence upon that occasion—a manner which, I hope, will never be forgotten—was the blush of conscious guilt, and not that blush which a woman must feel when she is asked before such an assembly as this to circumstances so revolting to female delicacy. If, therefore, you appeal to manner, I confidently state, that never was testimony given in a more clear, decisive manner, than the testimony of that witness—not from a wish of exaggeration, not with a wish to make out a case against her majesty; but the truth was unwillingly extorted from her. I say, the manner in which her evidence was given as to those stains greatly enhances her credit. But, my lords, she is cross-examined as to the places in which she had lived, her family, her having been at a place called the Glass-house—they have had an emissary, it seems, at Carlsruhe, for the purpose of procuring the attendance of the baron d'Ende. Do you believe, my lords, that that agent has not been active? Would he have done his duty if he had not inquired into the character of that servant? If that character could have been impeached, would you not have had the witnesses at your lordships bar? Not a person has been called—not one of the persons she served, not one of the persons at Carlsruhe or the neighbourhood in which she was known—to speak against her character. Though here I have to complain of that press which has been constantly at work reporting speeches supposed to have been made at public meetings, but which I cannot believe to have been made, asserting that
1318
this woman had undergone a disgraceful public punishment for some offence against morals. This is the way in which the witnesses are represented and blasted out of your lordships house—they are represented as persons to whom no credit is due; facts are swallowed by the multitude affecting their credit; whereas, before your lordships no attempt is made to blast, or even to impeach by the slightest breath of suspicion, the character of this witness Barbara Kress.
Then, my lords, you have in her a witness whose character is not impeached, who speaks to facts within her own personal knowledge which are not contradicted, and that case alone, if every other were blotted out of your recollection, would, in the minds of any jury of the country, establish the fact of an adulterous intercourse; and, upon that fact alone, your lordships' decision might safely proceed upon this part of the case alleged against her royal highness.
But, my lords, feeling the pressure of that case, how do my learned friends conduct themselves? Your lordships are to have the correspondence between Mr. Leman the clerk of Mr. Vizard and baron d'Ende upon this occasion. All that is to be taken to the advantage of my learned friend which is not evidence in the case. You are to have it believed, that baron d'Ende declines coming here, not for an illness he really suffers, but from a desire to be excused. But what reason has he to decline coming here? He stated that he was anxious to give evidence upon this occasion; that though he had an estate in Hanover he did not care for that; but after that your lordships are to suppose, that he declines coming here, not from an illness really felt, but from a fictitious cause, that he may gratify the wishes of some other persons—who your lordships are left to conjecture—though the government have used all their influence to procure the attendance of that person. My lords, I cannot but gravely suspect that my learned friends have no great wish for the evidence of baron d'Ende. I cannot think that his memory can be better than Vassali's, who attempts to account for every moment of her royal highness's residence at Carlsruhe. But here, my lords we have another topic—a person of the name of Grimm is introduced, and an attack is made upon him, perfectly unwarranted In the case. Nay, my learned friends ven-

1319
ture so far as to say that M. Grimm ought to have been called to confirm Barbara Kress. Confirm Barbara Kress! how? he was not at the inn during the time that her royal highness was there. He returned afterwards; and because her phrase was the same as that which she used as to the jäger, that he was "running about," my learned friends built upon that a position destructive of the character of this person, not here to defend himself, and which they could draw only from the weakness of their case, that he ought to have been a witness to confirm Barbara Kress, when it is perfectly evident that he could not have been called to support her in any one point.
My lords; have I satisfied you with respect to the evidence of Barbara Kress? Was it necessary for me to make so many observations upon it? I dismiss it with saying, that she has sworn to facts which are within her own knowledge—facts which might have been contradicted if not true, but which not being contradicted I leave to every unprejudiced mind the conclusion to be drawn from testimony so given and not attempted to be disputed.
My lords; at Turin a fact occurred which' my learned friends again pass over in silence, proved by a witness unim-peached, uncontradicted—I mean Birollo. My lords, no impeachment is attempted to be made of his character. He swears to facts particularly on board the polacre, in which he might have been contradicted; and if credit is not to be given to such witnesses, I know not any case that can be established by testimony. In page 149* you will see the account the gives of what passed at Turin. "Were you with the princess at Turin?" "I was."—"Do you recollect the princess going to court any day? I do."—"Do you recollect whether on that morning you were in Pergami's bed-room."I do."—"At what time of the morning was it?" "I went to carry a ruff to the dame d'honneur to put round her neck and a pair of gloves."—Did you observe the state of Pergami's bed, whether it appeared to have been slept in or not?" "At the moment I was coming out from the room of the dame d'honneur I saw Pergami coming out from the room of the princess, open the curtains of his bed, I saw that it was made, and he scolded me. He had a morning gown of silk striped, he had his drawers, his stockings and
* See Vol. 2, p. 944.
1320
slippers." He is examined by your lordships at page 153 to these circumstances. "When you said in a former answer Pergami's bed appeared to be made, did you mean, that it appeared as if it had not been slept in?" "I did."—"When Pergami came out of the princess's room and scolded you, can you state what he said?" You scoundrel, what are you doing here, who has opened the door? I said I had found it open, and he said, Go away.'"* My lords, there are facts deposed to by this man to which a contradiction might have been given. But no person is called to contradict him—his evidence therefore remains unimpeached, his character unattacked.
My lords; in the course of this journey, we come to Trieste; and here my learned friends think they have a great triumph. Cuchi swears that they were there several days, and that he observed what passed in the rooms, which he describes. There was a strict cross-examination by my learned friend, Mr. Williams, with that acuteness which distinguishes him, and a strict cross-examination by your lordships. And now they do not attempt to controvert the situation of the rooms, and the possibility of his seeing this; but they say, "We will contradict him as to the time her royal highness was there, and by an extraordinary letter which Mr. How-nam produces, who, though it is dated on the 18th of April, does not venture to state that it was not written on the day that they arrived. Vassali says, they were there a day and a half; and to prop up this testimony,—not satisfied with this, which they consider a triumphant case,—my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, with that adroitness which has distinguished him throughout this case—(I will call it by no other name)—holds out a newspaper; he reads it to your lordships before he knows whether it can be received in evidence; and though the professed object of it was to show that at that time she was received at court, or by the governor, the real object of it was in order to read it, to satisfy you that the period during which the) were at Trieste, was not longer than that sworn to by Hownam and Vassali. But what need have they of this evidence, if they have such firm reliance on the evidence of Hownam and Vassali. Would it not have been much more satisfactory to your lordships to have given
* See Vol. 2, p. 946.

1321
the evidence of persons acquainted with the place? I cannot doubt that those industrious agents who have been at Venice, have been also at Trieste. I cannot believe that Mr. Vizard has been so inactive as not to have sent to Trieste. I cannot but, believe he has had witnesses from Trieste, whom he dare not produce. My lords, would it not be material to contradict the situation of the secret door, and the situation of the apartments? But your lordships have not had a single witness to contradict these facts. They think the time is the material circumstance; whereas the facts he saw are the material circumstances; and therefore I leave it, with the threat held out, which was quite unnecessary, that this person was to be brought to justice. Perhaps, my lords, other persons may stand in the same situation; my learned friends may find that other persons, whether English or Italians—it is not necessary to mention the names—may have tripped in their testimony quite as much as Cuchi, whether it was two days or five that they were there.
My lords; I now come to another part of the case, upon which so much has been said, and which I wish your lordships minutely to examine; I mean the testimony given by Sacchi. And, my lords, I must confess I was a little surprised at the sarcasm of my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, when he came to comment upon that testimony—a sarcasm which he cast upon the counsel upon this side of the bar, though it was perfectly undeserved—as if: we had represented that Sacchi was entitled to more credit in consequence of having served in the army of Buonaparté, and having been promoted in that army. He says, "There was a time when we were not quite so liberal with respect to our opinions of such persons. The fact that such men may have bravery enough to make their masters give them a pair of colours, is no proof that they are the most scrupulous of mankind.*" My lords, I say, that some persons, in dealing in general observations, particular in those of sarcasm, have ultimately hit themselves and their friends as much as they hit their adversaries; for, my lords, singular enough it is, that her royal highness undoubtedly—I cannot suppose from any preference she could entertain for such persons; no, my lords, she was bred and born in a country, and she was united to a prince,
* See p. 169 of the present Volume.
1322
whose efforts have been to repress, that ambition which threatened the ruin of her native country, and of that country to which she was so firmly allied by her marriage—I cannot therefore suppose, that her royal highness could have had any preference for such persons; but, singular enough, it is not confined to Sacchi—the favoured Bergami also was a soldier of Buonaparte—Vassali, her equerry, was advanced to the order of the Iron Crown, a fact brought out by my learned friends to grace their cause—Olivieri was also a soldier in that army; and I find, that her royal highness (not, of course, from any esteem she could have for the bitterest enemies of this country) thinks it proper, as a British princess, to give a masked ball to one of those enemies, and to personate the Genius of History, in order to crown his bust with laurels, who had been one of the leaders in that conflict in which her dearest relatives had bled, and in which the treasure and blood of the country to which she was then on the threshhold of being Queen, had been spent, to prevent the constitution of the country, as it now exists, from being destroyed! My learned friend did not remember either the circumstances in which her royal highness had placed herself, or the situation of the witnesses he was about to call. Do not, therefore, my lords, let this operate against Sacchi. Let me examine his testimony attentively, and see in what parts he is contradicted, in what parts his credit is impeached—and upon that inquiry, let him stand or fall; but before that inquiry is instituted, let it not be said, that Sacchi is undeserving of credit.
Then, my lords, I come to his evidence, and the material contradiction attempted to be made to him. I mean his explanation as to his change of name upon his first arrival in this country, in consequence of a tumult, which was supposed to be that of Dover, though the very next question showed that he did not mean Dover. For your lordships will see, when I call your attention to that part of the evidence, that the question was followed up by another, which shows that he was not alluding to Dover when he gave that answer. In page 459 this question is put: "You have stated, that when you came first to this country you assumed the name of Milani, what was the reason why you assumed that name?" "I took this name on account of the tumult which had taken place, and of the danger I should have run,

1323
if I had come under my own name, knowing that I should have been known." "You have stated that you have taken another name? "—As your lordships will recollect, he stated that he had first come over under the name of Milani, and he afterwards assumed another name, which, by the permission of your lordships, he did not disclose, because it was thought necessary to his personal safety that it should be so.—"When was it that you assumed the name by which you now go? It was immediately after the affair that happened at Dover."* That shows that the first change of name had no reference to the tumult at Dover. The first name was assumed at Paris in consequence of a communication made to him there, and when my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, argued upon that part of the case, he forgot the answer immediately following, that to which he referred; but he referred to that in answer to your lordships; and you will remember how upon that he descanted. And upon the fact of his having a credit at Lausanne for fifty Napoleons, and whether he had ever said he had a credit for a larger sum, my learned friend was most powerful; and my learned friend says Suppose any of your lordships were asked as to a fact, and you say positively not—most certainly not,—I know it is not so'—nobody would dare to put the next question to you—at least I know very few of your lordships to whom they would dare to put it—did you ever say so? If put to any one of your lordships, or to any man except in jest, or if the person was beneath your notice, you would disdain to give any answer, for you had answered that question before. If you are a man to be believed on our oath, have you not answered the question whether you ever told any person you had money at your bankers, by saying you know you had no more at your bankers? If you had no more, you never could have said so †Oh, my lords! here again, if my learned friend would apply that reasoning to his own witnesses, how many of them would be destroyed at once, by that reasoning! How many questions have been put to Mr. Hownam, particularly as to the fact which took place at Bellinzona, when he says the courier first dined with her royal highness—the question was asked him,
* See Vol. 2, p. 1311.
† See p. 171 of the present Volume.
1324
whether he had not remonstrated with her royal highness against his so dining with her—and instead of answering with that virtuous indignation which is to rise up in the breast of every honourable man—instead of saying "it was not so," or even saying "positively I never said so," all that he will take upon himself to say, is, that he "cannot tell," that he "does not believe," and all sorts of answers except that one which my learned friend says is the only answer, without giving which he is a man of no credit. It would be painful for me to refer to other circumstances of the same sort; but this sort of reasoning may be applied equally to many of their witnesses; but as to Mr. Hownam, the observation may be most forcibly applied, for these are facts which he never could have forgotten to have passed. But ray learned friends thought they had so completely and triumphantly destroyed the credit of Sacchi, that not relying upon their observations, they endeavoured to prove facts by which the testimony of Sacchi is said to be destroyed.
My lords; the fact he states is, that he was a courier to her royal highness, and that he went in that character from Rome to Sinigaglia. Your lordships will recollect the facts he alludes to as having taken place upon that occasion. My lords, he is hardly cross-examined upon that subject, except as to the carriage. Some of your lordships did put questions to him, but not a question was put by my learned friends. Then how is he to be contradicted, my lords? If questions had been put to him by my learned friends on cross-examination, we should have seen the drift of the examination, and that they intended to contradict him upon the fact, and should have had an opportunity of confirming him upon that fact, by other witnesses. But the cross-examination passes in silence; and we were I therefore shut out from the opportunity! But, my lords, they rested there—and let me here remind your lordships of the opening of my learned friend Mr. Williams—in alluding to the case of Sinigaglia, he said, "we shall negative the indecencies which are sworn to by Sacchi, by the presence of the person who was in the carriage at the time."* I wish that person had been produced, I am sure your lordships must wish it, because, if such a witness had been produced, it
* See p. 284.

1325
would have been better than the testimony of ten such witnesses as Carlo Forti, unsupported and contradicted as he is by Hownam and Vassali.
Now, my lords, let us see what it is that Carlo Forti swears to upon this subject. His evidence is at page 632. And, my lords, upon this, allow me to avail myself again of the observations (for I am always glad to do so) of my adversaries; for they cannot be supposed to make observations against themselves. They proceed from their observation of mankind—they are applied to the witnesses in sup-port of the bill; and your lordships cannot consider me as unfair in repeating them. I have called your lordships attention to the observation, that a witness is frequently caught tripping upon that which is considered as immaterial at the time, but of which the importance afterwards appears. Now, what does Carlo Forti set out with? "Were you a courier in the service of her royal highness?" I was."—"When did you enter it?" "On her departure from Milan, in 1817."—"In whose service were you immediately before?" "In the service of the viceroy of Italy, as chief cabinet courier."—"You have said, that you entered the princess's service at the time that she was going away from Milan, where was she then going?" "She was going to Rome."—"Did you apply to be taken into her service?" "I did."—"From what motive?"—your lordships will see that this examination was conducted with a view to the witnesses to come behind, for they knew what Vassali was likely to say, "Because at that moment I was out of service."* And then they go on to ask as to his relations at Rome—endeavouring to get out from him that it was not to enter into the service of her royal highness at the time but to visit his relations, and, amongst those relations I ought not to omit or forget, that one was his aunt the duchess of Torlonia, the wife of Torlonia the banker, one of those persons whom her royal highness condescended to receive at the Villa Brandi when she was at Rome.
Now, what does Vassali say to that? He is asked, at p. 939, "How long had Carlo Forti been in the service?" "He began the service at Rome definitively, but provisionally he began from Loretto."—"Can you state the occasion on which Carlo was provisionally hired at Loretto?" "As
* See p. 436 of the present Volume.
1326
Forti was acquainted with the city of Rome, being a Roman, he was sent with a dispatch for this object."* My lords, he is examined by your lordships upon this fact, because it had struck you there' was a contradiction between him and Carlo Forti. "Did you say that Carlo Forti was first taken into her royal highness's service at Loretto?" "I said that Carlo Forti entered her service at Rome, and that previously he set out from Loretto with a dispatch."—"Did you ever see Carlo Forti in her royal highness's service, before you saw him in her service at Rome?" "From Loretto to Rome provisionally Carlo Forti set out as a private individual, but not as a courier; they did him the favour to take him, in order that he might see his brother at Rome, not as a courier."—"Did Carlo Forti in point of fact accompany her royal highness on her journey from Milan to Loretto? No, not as a courier. He did not enter provisionally into the service, but he was dispatched provisionally, just as another courier would have been."—"Did Carlo Fort go from Loretto to Rome, at the same time with her royal highness, or did he so before?" "Yes, he went with her royal highness from Loretto to Rome."† What is my observation upon this? Were my observations misapplied, or were they not, yesterday, when I commented upon the evidence of Carrington? Were they or were they not just, as applied to that man's testimony, when he stated he had been a midshipman at a time when it is proved he had not been. Carlo Forti swore he was hired at Milan; that he was applied to, to be hired at Milan, and that he went from Milan to Rome in her royal highness's service. What is the evidence of Vassali? not that he went as a courier, but that they did him the favour to take him, in order that he might see his brother at Rome, not as a courier? I say, my lords, here is a positive contradiction of their own evidence—that he is contradicted in a fact as to which his memory could not deceive him, if he came to speak the truth. This I have in the commencement of his evidence. Now let us see what is his evidence as to Sacchi not having travelled as a courier from Rome to Sinigaglia. He is asked, "At what time did they arrive at Sinigaglia?" "At eleven o'clock." Then he gives the account of Sacchi set-
* See p. 940 of the present Volume.
† See p. 954 of the present Volume.

1327
ting out in the caratella. I will not cavil at words. I was attempted to be set right by Mr. Brougham. If I had seen the evidence as I see it now, I would not have submitted to the correction—it is not that he set out in a caratella, but in the caratella belonging to her royal highness, speaking of only one, "he travelled in the caratella before, and I on horseback with the carriages."—"How long before did Sacchi set out upon that journey in the caratella?" "Two hours before, he ordered the horses and paid for them during that journey." Now what is the reason he gives? and though it excited a smile at the time, give me leave to say, I cannot believe Sacchi had been in the cavalry, he had travelled in her royal highness's suite as courier; and Forti states as the reason why he did not travel upon that journey, that two months before, in going from Ancona to Rome, he had met with that accident which sometimes does occur to persons when unused to riding, but not often to those who are. Now, I ask whether that could be the reason why Sacchi did not ride as courier in that journey? I say, that is an account which I think your lordships cannot believe; because it is hardly possible that a man should have laboured under the effects of such an accident for two months, and at the end of those two months it should be inconvenient to him, to resume his occupations, which were to be on horseback, as courier to her royal highness.
Now, my lords, let us see his account of the carriages, and how it tallies with the account given by Mr. Hownam and Vassali. My lords, he states, that he accompanied the carriages on horseback; that the carriage in which her royal highness travelled was a landaulet with curtains (the word in Italian applying either to blinds or to curtains) drawn aside—he says, her royal highness rested the second day at ten in the morning at Nocera—and on the following day at eleven they arrived at Sinigaglia. My lords, he is cross-examined particularly as to the carriages. He says, there were four carriages belonging to her royal highness; that they travelled in that way the whole of the way from Rome to Sinigaglia; that the order of the carriages was her royal highness first, the bastardella was the second, and the caratella the third; so that he there makes three carriages upon that journey—and he says afterwards, that Sacchini set out before in the caratella; but then, as I
1328
stated to your lordships, he was considered as having not said the caratella in his examination in chief; but he says it was a caratella he took from stage to stage, and he accounts for the fourth carriage by stating that Louis Bergami travelled from Rome to Sinigaglia in the caratella by himself.* Now, my lords, let us look to the account given by Mr. Hownam and Vassali as to the carriages. Your lordships will recollect, that Mr. Hownam will not venture to swear, that Sacchi did not accompany them as the courier in any part of this journey. He says, the princess travelled in the landaulet. "Are you sure it was in the landaulet?" "I am not certain, but I think it was—she had travelled in that to Rome; in fact, she always travelled in that carriage."—"You travelled by night to avoid the heat of the day?" "Precisely so."—"Who travelled in the carriage with her royal highness?" "Countess Oldi, Pergami, and little Victorine." So that, although he places only three persons in the carriage which followed her royal highness, which was the bastardella; although it was very hot weather, and they travelled in the night to avoid the heat of the day, in this English landaulet, you find her royal highness travelling with two other persons, and, in addition to that, the little Victorine! Why, my lords, I should have thought that there being a vacant place in another carriage—not Bergami (for one cannot expect he should be removed), but the countess Oldi would be; for it cannot be supposed, that her royal highness would conceive, after sleeping five weeks under the same tent with Bergami without the countess Oldi, that it would be indelicate to travel alone with him. Such were the number of persons who travelled in this carriage with her royal highness during this hot weather. My lords, he is asked "Who travelled in the third carriage," and he says, "I think it was William Austin and count Vassali;" and I have it in my recollection, that he travelled in the landau, he or Schiavini, with Demont and her sister. My lords, he now states, and it is a little singular, that he travelled in the English landaulet; and then afterwards, he makes out a fourth carriage. "Who travelled in the fourth?" "I, with a Roman, captain Lancy, that was to Rome." But he says, there was a fourth carriage in the journey from Rome
* See p. 442 of the present Volume.

1329
to Sinigaglia. There is a mistake between him and Carlo Forti somewhere. He makes the count Schiavini, Demont, and her sister, to be in the English landau with him. Your lordships will find by Olivieri's evidence, that Schiavini did not set out from Rome till the following day. I do not care whether it was so or not; I am only showing your lordships how imperfect the recollection of these persons is.—These persons stand up here to contradict Sacchi, as to the countess Oldi being in the carriage, who, it was stated by my learned friends, would be produced, but who has not been produced, for that or any other purpose. Now, what does Vassali say. Confirming the account of its being hot weather, he makes out four carriages accompanying her royal highness. "At what time did you set out from Rome?" "About ten."—Colonel Olivieri swearing it was past midnight! I only point out this circumstance to show the discordance between these witnesses, and how little reliance can be placed upon their accuracy. He is asked, "Who travelled in the first carriage?" "Her royal highness, countess Oldi, Mr. Pergami, and the little Victorine."—"Who travelled in the second?" "I believe Mr. Hownam, Demont, and Brunette." Here, then, according to Vassali's recollection, there were only three persons; according to Hownam, there were four. But it is sworn, that Schiavini did not set out till the next day; and if so, there being a place in that carriage, can it be believed, that her royal highness would travel with so many in her carriage? "Who travelled in the third?" "Mr. William Austin, myself, and a servant on the box."—"Who in the fourth?" "I believe they were servants. If I do not deceive myself, there were Soliman and a Greek, whose name I do not remember." Now, my lords, he has brought to his recollection how long they staid at Fano, and how long they were detained on this journey: and Mr. Hownam will not swear it was as late as five o'clock, but thinks it was in the middle of the day he arrived there Vassali, upon the same subject, states, that he saw the theatre at Fano, but not with her royal highness. "Did not you desire Forti to apprise your friend at Fano, that you shall be there and see him?" "Yes." He says he does not remember seeing Sacchi—he does not remember the circumstance of any refreshment being given, and then being asked,
1330
"What time did you arrive at Sinigaglia?" He says, "I think by day."—"At what time of the day?" "If I am not mistaken, before dinner." But when it is put to him, whether it was before four or five o'clock, he will not swear that it was not in the afternoon—Mr. Hownam saying, that he believed it was not so late as five o'clock—when, from the nature of the question, it was impossible it should be so; for they stopped at Fano for considerable time, to enable Vassali to see the theatre, and to have a conference with his friend. This being so, where your lordships find, from the variances in these persons testimony, neither of them venturing to swear, that Sacchi did not travel as a courier upon that journey—when the case is left without calling the person who could have proved that fact—that third person in the carriage of her royal highness, who was to negative the indecencies, and who could have proved, if it was so, that Carlo Forti was the courier, and not Sacchi—I think your lordships will feel it impossible to say, that he is so affected as to destroy his credit. He is contradicted by Carlo Forti, but I have shown your lordships how he himself is contradicted by other testimony; and if so, I have shown that it remains on Sacchi's uncontradicted testimony, he having sworn positively to that fact. My lords, Carlo Forti states, that "Soliman sat on the box, and Polidore came a day after, for he remained at Rome;" whereas, according to Vassali, Soliman, and Polidore accompanied them in that journey.
My lords; this being the only contradiction attempted to Sacchi—his letters not being offered in evidence to contradict him—I am sure your lordships expected, I that the time would arrive when those letters would be produced to destroy the credit of that man; but neither those letters, nor the third letter written by Demont, nor the supposed challenge written by her for Mr. Hownam, are produced. What, therefore, becomes of the credit of those witnesses, when those letters are not produced, and when they are obliged to rest upon this solitary instance of Sinigaglia to contradict the evidence of Sacchi? There were various other persons on this journey—there were servants—there was the countess Oldi. I lay my finger upon that witness, whom they stated they should produce; but who, for certain reasons, is not produced.
I trust I have said enough to show

1331
your lordships, that the attack upon Sacchi is unsupported, and is unfounded. Then, my lords, what other case have I remaining?—the case of Restelli. Oh, unfortunate case of Restellifor the Queen! They had gone on before the wind, as they thought, with their English witnesses—they called lieut. Flinn—he was blown to atoms on the cross-examination. Hownam they ventured upon, and, stunned as they were by the destruction of Flinn, the admissions made by Hownam operated still more strongly on their minds. My lords, the destruction of Flinn was nothing to the admissions of Hownam. Feeling that, they stop short—they call, indeed, Mr. Grenville Sharpe; and after him, they make a diversion upon this witness Restelli, about whom so much has been said; and therefore, upon that unlucky, that unfortunate case, permit me to say a few words.
My lords; it is supposed that Restelli could have given important evidence for them. Your lordships will recollect his cross-examination. Neither of the persons mentioned by him on cross-examination is produced; but they produce two persons, whose names we had never heard of, as likely to contradict Restelli, as to whom he had never been interrogated. But your lordships most properly let them into the evidence in consequence of his absence. They call Giarolini and Pomi; and upon them they rest this contradiction to Restelli, this case of conspiracy, which was to overwhelm the prosecution. My lords, I have heard that the Queen labours under great disadvantage, in consequence of Restelli not being called. I believe, in my conscience, that she has a very great advantage. The whole of the line of evidence which would have been open to them, if he had been here, is open to them. They call Giarolini and Pomi alone to that part of the case, and there they stop. I say, the absence of Restelli was a most fortunate circumstance for them—their ship was sinking at that time—they durst not proceed in that line of defence—they were proceeding to contradict the facts of the case—they had called several witnesses to depose rather to her royal highness's character than to the facts of the case; except Mr. Graven and sir W. Gell, but lieut. Hownam terrified them from producing other witnesses—his admissions, I believe, formed the reason why they durst not produce any other witness. And then we
1332
have the whole story of the supposed conspiracy, and the attack upon the Milan commission. My lords, that is the proper opportunity to introduce it, in consequence of the absence of Restelli; and I must confess, that after the evidence given before your lordships—which evidence I apprehend was rather irregularly referred to by Mr. Denman, because it was a report to your lordships House, and not evidence in the case, but my learned friend has chosen to refer to it, in order to attack the character of Mr. Powell, through whose means that witness was sent away, and through him to attack the Milan commission—I think I may safely appeal to every one of your lordships, whether, however erroneous in judgment, however mistaken, and undoubtedly he was mistaken in so doing, you have the slightest suspicion that the object of Mr. Powell was to remove Restelli from your lordships control? I ask whether the letters of Mr. Powell do not satisfy your lordships of the bona fides of Mr. Powell? And though my learned friend, Mr. Denman, says, Restelli was "spirited away," I ask, whether, though erroneously carried into effect, the fact was not, that he was sent under a full expectation that he would be here at the time your proceedings re-commenced, and that illness alone was the reason of his non-return? My lords, if he had been here, would they have called him? See what is done as to Sacchi! Sacchi was called for—your lordships adjourn in consequence of questions put to the learned Judges—and my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, the next day, when Sacchi is ready to be produced at your lordships bar, says, "No, this is not the precise moment—I will rather give up the witness than call Sacchi." It shows the sort of confidence he had in that witness, whom he would not venture to produce after Sacchi; he withdraws him altogether, because Sacchi was forthcoming. I believe my learned friend had some hopes, that he was at Stevenage with Mr. Godfrey, and could not be got at for a day or two—but there was no interruption, the question remained for the decision of the Judges, therefore it remained till the following morning before he could be called. That circumstance with, respect to Sacchi is a commentary upon my learned friends conduct as to Restelli. Could they have got out from him any facts which they have not? I believe infinitely more advantage has been de-

1333
rived to her majesty from the removal of Restelli, than could have been by his presence. It has excited a clamour, it has produced a topic on which my learned friends have exercised all their powers; but it has been on account of that absence they have done so. If he had been here, we might have been told, as we were with respect to Sacchi, that they would stop their evidence, and go no farther.
And here, my lords, I may perhaps be allowed to say one word as to the conduct of the Milan commission. Enough has been said to justify such a proceeding. No man can doubt, that before such an investigation as this upon which your lordships have entered, it was the bounden duty of those who instituted such a proceeding to take care that they had ample means of proof; and no persons could be selected of higher character than those who were selected upon that occasion. If Mr. Cooke has not been in the habit of attending courts of law, and sifting evidence, every man knows his experience in the court in which he practises, his experience as a commissioner of bankrupt, where he has had ample means of detecting falsehood and eliciting truth, and his experience as a man to whom, and to none more than to him—are referred those litigations which must otherwise go on in courts of justice. I say, from his character, from his experience, from his legal knowledge, from his reputation, no better man could have been fixed upon to be at the head of such a proceeding. Of colonel Browne I know nothing personally, but from reputation I believe him a man equally fit for the situation he filled. With respect to Mr. Powell, what is the imputation my learned friend cast upon him? that he having been a commissioner at Milan, is called upon to assist those whose assistance I have upon the present occasion. But, my lords, is that a reason why he should not be employed? Is not that the very reason why he should? Does not Mr. Vizard examine the witnesses before he produces them at your lordships bar? It is trifling to make such observations as have been made to affect Mr. Powell's character. That character stands as fair before you as that of any man whatever. He has acted certainly without due care in permitting Restelli to leave the country; but I cannot help thinking, that my learned friend introduced without sufficient ground, those to-
1334
pics which he did, to excite your passion* but not to guide your judgment in the conclusion to which you are to come. My lords, with respect to Restelli, he is open to the observations to which others are open. He is interrogated, on cross-examination, as to the reason of his leaving her royal highness's service; and as to his having a certain conversation with Vassali, he says he never had such a conversation, and that he always stated the real cause of his leaving her service. Vassali is produced; but not a single question is asked as to this supposed conversation with Restelli. Therefore I have a right to state, that Vassali cannot contradict him upon the subject.
My lords; there are one or two cases in which contradictions are supposed to be made, and which, if I passed over, I should be supposed not to be able to meet them. Raggazoni deposes to the gross conduct on the part of her royal highness and Bergami in the grotto at the Villa d'Este. My lords, in examining into this case, your lordships must attend a little to the manner in which that man deposed as to that fact; for I believe upon his cross-examination, not a single question was addressed to him upon the facts to which he deposed. My lords, he states that he was at work in a room in the grotto where he was making a cornice. "Was there a room adjoining to that?" "Behind there was"—"While you were at work did you hear any body in that adjoining room?" "Yes, I heard somebody enter." He says he went behind a pilaster to look what they were doing; and when he saw them coming towards him, he mounted on his scaffold, and worked at his cornice. Now, my lords, attend to the next answer, "Are you to be understood that those two figures were in the room next to that in which you were at work?" "They were behind the room where I was at work, by ten or twelve yards."* Now, my lords, observe the fact—that being at work on a cornice in the room, at the distance often or twelve yards, he went down from his scaffold, he approached the pilaster, and he witnessed that scene. Now, my lords, he is to be contradicted upon that by Santino Gugiari, and Giarolini, and he is to be contradicted by a plan; and though these witnesses are brought from Milan and the Villa d'Este to satisfy your lordships upon those facts, though plans had
* See Vol. 2, p. 1093.

1335
been taken by Ratti, although they knew how necessary it was to bring an accurate plan of this grotto to your lordships, no plan is brought; but, the day before he is examined, he draws a rough plan, from which a magnificent print is exhibited to your lordships, and this plan is produced as a plan by which your judgment is to be guided upon this occasion.* My lords, did they come to contradict the fact or not? If they did, why did not they make apian upon the spot, to satisfy you of the accuracy of the situation of this room. Now, my lords, do they agree as to the situation of this room? One of them states, that the grotto is the whole length of this room; and if your lordships will refer to the plan, and see the distance from the room where the Adam and Eve were, to that in which he was at work, you will find it was about ten or twelve yards. The Adam and Eve were there, that is admitted—they had the leaves with wires before them, that is proved, then. Gugiari says, there were "six rooms in the grotto, comprising the round rooms and the square rooms."—Were they all in the same story?" Then he describes how they communicated with each other—"The two rooms communicated together; the first room was the rotunda, in which there were the statues; on mounting the steps came the second room, where Artemisia was; after the second room, on the same level, there was another room, a gothic room; there is a passage, and then one step on the right, after two or three steps there is a rotunda; after this rotunda, on the same level, there is a second rotunda, larger, where a cornice was made; after that rotunda, comes a half-square room. † He says, he saw an architect of the name of Ratti, employed in taking plans at the Villa d'Este, about three or four months ago. So that Ratti has been employed in taking plans of those places, which your lordships are not favoured with, for the best of all possible reasons—that the plans, if produced, would corroborate the evidence which has been given by our witnesses. Then Giarolini is asked, "Was there any cornice-work done in the room where the statues of Adam and Eve were?" "No, nothing at all."—"Was there any cornice-work done in any other part of the grotto?" "At the top, where there was an octangular room, there was another room which I had built
* See the Plan at p. 365.
† See p. 566 of the present Volume.
1336
myself, and they worked in no other room but that."—"Were they at work upon the cornice in that room?" "Upon the cornice."—"Had they scaffolding up for the purpose?"—"They had to reach the ceiling?"—"Has there been any scaffolding put up in any other room, or part of the grotto but that?" "In no other but these two rooms."—"Did the square room join to the octangular room?" "Yes."—"Was the square; room, or the octangular room, nearer to: the statues" "The octangular room?" Then he says, "In no way could you see those statues." And then, "Do you mean the passage from the square and octangular rooms towards the room in which the statues stood?" "First coming from the octangular room, there comes another room, and then another passage, and then another room where the statues were."* So that he makes between the octangular room, and the room in which the statues were, only one room; whereas Guggiari makes six. Therefore, without an accurate plan, how loosely do these persons pretend to describe those places. And then your lordships are to be induced to believe, that Raggazoni was speaking falsely, he not being cross-examined upon these matters. My lords, you cannot say there is contradiction—at most there is some confusion introduced into the case; but having a witness who swears positively to the fact, whose character is not impeached, and there being only a witness to swear that it could not take place, I say, consistently with his evidence, it could have taken place, he might have gone to a certain distance from the room in which he was working and have seen it.
My lords there are two circumstances also which are, in some measure, attempted to be contradicted—I mean the evidence of Giuseppe Guggiari as to the kissing in the boat, and the bathing in the Brescia, which I will just touch upon. They endeavour to contradict this; they call a man of the name of Lago Maggiore, who gave a most extraordinary evidence. He swears, that her royal highness was always accompanied by gentlemen; that Tamasia or Mocatti always accompanied her, though it turned out that they lived at Como, and, therefore, it was inconvenient to them to accompany her, inasmuch as they would have to return in the middle of the night. And then he retracted that fact, but your lordships will recollect what
* See p. 572 of the present Volume

1337
Guggiari says, that persons looking that way, might have seen it; and all the contradiction they have given is by this man, that he was present, and did not see that which the other witness states to have seen take place.—My lords, with respect to the Brescia, the man did not state that the bathing took place in the Brescia itself—there was some confusion in his testimony at first; but they were in the water behind a bank where persons occasionally bathed. Lieut. Hownam is asked as to the Brescia, but not a question is put to him as to this place behind the bank where this is sworn to have taken place.
My lords; these are the contradictions. But what is there that they do not attempt to contradict? There are one or two facts, I mean the Mahomet scene and the balls at the Barona. Now, with respect to Mahomet, that indecent and disgusting exhibition, if it took place, let me call your attention to the manner in which this is proved. It is spoken to by Majoochi, by Birollo, and by Oggioni. Now, my lords, they swear to that which I can only characterize as one of the most indecent exhibitions I have ever heard of. This is attempted to be accounted for by lieut. Hownam, who says, that this is not a Moorish dance, but a sort of dance in ridicule of the doctor. He' says he has seen the same dance on shore, and that upon one occasion he was present with the princess. Vassali says, that he also had seen the dance of Mahomet. But, my lords, what signifies the dancing of Mahomet at other times, and on other occasions! My learned friends felt this case so much—although I have been so much attacked for opening it—they knew that it proved to demonstration the whole guilt of her royal highness—they felt it so severely, that not relying on Hownam and Vassali, they had recourse to the most extraordinary evidence that ever was produced to negative a fact of this sort. They called Mr. Granville Sharpe to prove a dance at Calcutta, which dance at Calcutta was not indecent, ergo, the dance at the Villa d'Este was not indecent at all. My lords, they might as well have called two persons to prove that they danced a minuet. Sir W. Gell, whose knowledge of the customs of other nations is so profound, says, and so does lieut. Hownam, catching his words, that it is not more indecent than the Spanish bolero. It may or may not be indecent. I have read that it is, on some occasions, so indecent,
1338
that a female cannot witness it. I have the authority of Mr. Swinburne, that the bolero dance in Spain which he has witnessed, is so indecent in the attitudes of the person who performs it, that no woman of delicacy could witness such a dance. Then, my lords, what signifies what the Spanish bolero is, when females are present? What signifies what the dances at Calcutta are? We are inquiring as to the dances of this man, who, it is stated by Dr. Lushington, is to be engaged at Drury-lane theatre—a very pretty anecdote to amuse your lordships from the tedium of a dry speech or detail of evidence! But it stands upon the evidence of Birollo, Oggioni, and of Majoochi, that that dance was performed in the presence of her royal highness.
My lords; as to the balls at the Barona, is there any contradiction upon them? I say they are confirmed by the testimony given by my learned friends. I say they were balls given by her royal highness—and let me ask you why they were given to persons of the lowest description in the neighbourhood of the house where her royal highness was staying. "Oh!" says my learned friend, Mr. Denman, "this was from the affability and condescension of her royal highness, anxious to give pleasure to those about her—it is no more than is done by many ladies of high rank in the country, joining in entertainments with the persons in their village. But, my lords, they are not given at her royal highness's house, but at the seat of the favoured Bergami! Her royal highness is not the hostess, but she joins in those festivities in honour of her favoured Bergami! they are not given in the neighbourhood of her own residence, but they are given to the neighbours of Bergami. My learned friend could not turn to the passages—I will turn to them for him—in which the witness speaks of the flower of gentlefolks, who attended upon that occasion. The "flower of gentlefolks" is the daughter of the landlady of the St. Christopher! If these festivities were not intended for the gentlefolks of the neighbourhood, there is one person who, one should have thought, would have been present, closely connected with Bergami; but that person appears to be the only one who is never permitted to join in the festivities of the Barona—the wife of Bergami is not permitted to join in the festivities, or to share the fortunes of her husband. She is the only person not

1339
introduced; she is to run away the moment her royal mistress sets foot in the Villa Bergami, the seat of her husband, her own house, from which she is to be excluded as long as royalty inhabits it? I say, the Barona balls stand confirmed by the evidence given on the other side. I am stated to have exaggerated those balls, when I opened them to your lordships as scenes of profligacy. My lords, recollect the conversation which took place between her royal highness and Sacchi, Bergami being present! It is proved that persons were seen retiring from the room. I could not inquire for what purpose—but this is established, that the princess of Wales, since Queen of this country, did join in these revels, which were attended by the peasantry, and not one lady has been proved to be present, except, I think, the wives of professor Mocatti and Tamasia and the wife of Cavaletti—not even the wife of Vassali, living at Milan! But, oh! he gives a reason for that—she had not been introduced. She, however, does not attend these festivities; and with respect to the Barona balls, I call your attention to one extraordinary answer given by Pomi to a question put to him. I asked as to a particular female, and he, thinking what the question meant, says, "Oh, she is not a prostitute.'' That answer comes out of his mouth before it is suggested by me. I asked, "What is the name of the landlady of the St. Christopher?" "Rosina."—"Has she not been at those balls?" Now, see his answer; because it shows what was lurking in that man's mind, and that the question was found to pinch severely, "Yes, she came: but because she had been brought by those other girls; but she is a respectable woman, she is not a prostitute!"* My lords, I say that answer is confirmation strong of the general character of the persons who attended at those balls. My lords, I dismiss this scene: I now proceed to other parts.
Mr. Denman.—Will you point out the page in which it is said, that the Villa then belonged to Bergami?
Mr. Attorney General.—Is there any evidence that it ever belonged to her royal highness? Pomi says, it belonged to Bergami, and was then mortgaged, and then returned to him. Is it suggested that it was ever her's? But, my lords, I care not—it was under his name—he appears to have the property in that place,
* See p. 693 of the present Volume.
1340
and, therefore, I submit, that my observations as to the Barona, remain untouched. Whilst I am upon this subject, let me not forget the theatrical exhibitions at the Villa d'Este, which I think it was degrading to her royal highness to join in. Mr. Hownam has a most convenient memory upon that subject. He cannot remember the characters in which she appeared. He recollects that Louis Pergami performed the part of Harlequin, but he cannot recollect whether she appeared as Columbine. He does recollect that she performed the part of an Automaton, and that appears to be the character of a lady who could be "wound up to any thing." My lords, is this the conduct of a person in the rank and situation of her royal highness? But it is said, be it degrading conduct, be it improper, it does not argue the guilt imputed to her. My lords, I say it does, Bergami acts upon that occasion, and she acts, and this is proved by Demont, and not contradicted by others, that she acted the part of Columbine. My learned friends attempted to make it out a different character from that in this country—that may be, but I believe the Italian Harlequin is the lover, and the Columbine is the person beloved, and in that character she thinks fit to entertain her visitors at the Villa d'Este. There are other other facts, but I should tire your lordships by alluding to them. Do you recollect the fact sworn to by Demont of the change of the earrings—the change of the cap, for one made in imitation of that worn by Bergami—the amusement in the chair in the garden at the Villa d'Este, proved by so many witnesses? I will enumerate the witnesses, whose evidence is not impeached, to show how many of them remain untouched as to familiarities of the grossest and most indecent nature—there is, first of all, Birollo, against whom there is no imputation and no contradiction; Bianchi, upon whose evidence, as to what passed at Venice, I have commented; Majoochi, who speaks to the familiarities and to the padoranello; Lucini, to the same effect; Galdini, upon which we had an amusing observation by Dr. Lushington. He states, he will say what happened in an Italian moment. The learned doctor comments, with great amusement, upon what must have taken place in this extraordinary short time. I think I can match him, if he likes to have a parallel, by an English witness. I can call sir W. Gell to my aid, who in a

1341
flash of lightning, sees not only the dress, but the under-dress of her royal highness, though it appeared only as the door was closed; and in opposition to the Italian moment, I will set off the English flash of lightning. Then there is Finetti, who speaks to several facts of the most indecent nature—he proves that which must be admitted to be proved almost till your lordships were tired; for instance, walking arm in arm. I cannot but recollect, in the progress of this inquiry, that at first your lordships were struck when any proof was given of her royal highness having walked arm in arm with Bergami; but as we advanced, we thought nothing of it—it sunk into insignificance it had been proved so often, and other facts were heaped so upon it. So with respect to the cause; until my lord Guildford had confirmed that, it was thought a monstrous libel upon her royal highness, but it turns out there was nothing in that. But Finetti saw him coming from the side of the house in which the princess's room was towards his own in a morning-gown. He also saw the princess attending Bergami when ill at Ruffinelli, and he saw them embrace twice. Brusa, confirms Raggazoni as to seeing her royal highness in the garden at the Villa d'Este, on St. Bartholomew's day, and he proves their caressing. Rancatti, proves that he saw the princess and Bergami walking arm in arm as man and wife, and he proves kissing at the Villa Brandi. Dell' Orto, proves that the Queen was sitting with Bergami in the garden alone, he kissing her, with his arm round her neck, and here is no cross-examination of him whatever.
My lords; I believe I have enumerated now the witnesses against whom no contradiction has been offered, and who proved those acts of familiarity which I have enumerated to your lordships. I have now gone through the case as it was proved on the part of the bill, and, as I have endeavoured to show your lordships, supported by the examination of her royal highness's witnesses. Let me implore your attention for a few minutes, whilst I call it to the evidence examined on the part of her royal highness a little in detail. My lords, what is the course which has been taken by my learned friends on the other side, they having begun by calling before you certain witnesses, merely to grace the cause, and to have the credit of having produced them?
Lord Chancellor.—Would you wish for any interval?
Mr. Attorney General—No, my lords, I trust I shall finish within a reasonable time. The first witness called to grace the cause, was Mr. St. Leger. He proves only that be was chamberlain, and retired from her royal highness at Brunswick. Upon the evidence of lord Guildford, and lady Charlotte Lindsay, I have already made my comment. What is it they are to prove? They are to support the character of her royal highness, lady Charlotte to speak to four and twenty days, lord Guildford to dining with her at Naples, at Leghorn, and at the Villa d'Este. They are called to give a species of evidence to character. Lord Glenbervie to his dining with her at Genoa and seeing nothing improper. Lord Llandaff is called to prove the dining at Naples, and he certainly does prove an extraordinary fact, that he did distinguish Bergami from the other servants at Naples, and he afterwards dined with her royal highness at Rome. But he is called to endeavour to prove what lawyers call "the custom of the country," with respect to gentlemen visiting ladies in their bed-rooms; but my learned friend finding he could not prove "the custom of the country," his lordship was requested to prove what he himself had done in Italy. Your lordships recollect it excited rather a smile. His answer was, that he had seen many ladies in bed in a morning; and this is to be good evidence to prove that there is no indecency in having a man in a lady's bed-room at night. My lord Llandaff is not questioned as to his practice upon that subject, but he is to prove, that he, a nobleman on terms of equality with those ladies, visited ladies when in bed in the presence of other persons. Is that to be an excuse for a manservant being present during the whole night in the bed-room of his mistress, and while she is attiring? If such is the conclusion to which this evidence is to lead, I think the questions had better not have been put; for your lordships will see how preposterous it is to draw conclusions from such evidence.
After lord Llandaff, Mr. Keppel Craven and sir W. Gell are called; and I cannot help directing your recollection to the evidence given by sir W. Gell, with respect to one fact which he stated. I declare to your lordships, and I believe you were under the same impression, I thought

1343
at the conclusion of his evidence he had been three months an inmate in the residence of her royal highness at the Villa Brandi. In answer to a question, whether he saw anything in the conduct of the princess towards Bergami, in her conduct, manners, conversation, or looks, to induce him to entertain an idea that there was an adulterous intercourse between them, answers, "Upon my honour I never saw the princess speak to Bergami but on matters of business, though I was in the house for three months at once with them:"—which three months your lordships recollect were at the Villa Brandi. And, my lords, he states, "I attended her to the Villa Brandi, where I staid with her all the time she was there, being about three months.*" My lords, I impute nothing to sir W. Gell; but, the impression upon my mind was, that he was staying in the house for three months, and that an argument was to be raised on the other side, that his staying for three months, showed that her royal highness did not care for his being there, though she was attended by her chamberlain Bergami. What was the evidence of Carrington? Sir W. Gell never slept in that house a single night. I asked Carrington, by accident, where he slept, and he says, at his hotel, at a distance of a mile and a half. The testimony of sir W. Gell, as to what he saw at the Villa Brandi, is therefore considerably weakened by the evidence afterwards given by his servant.
My lords; Dr. Holland is then called. He is a witness also to character, and he also is to prove, that during the period he was with her royal highness he saw nothing improper in her conduct. My lords, there is a singular fatality with respect to all these attendants—he is engaged for a year and a half; it is suggested by her royal highness, that this was a good opportunity for his taking a tour into Switzerland—to which he answers, "If your royal highness can spare me to go to Switzerland, I would rather go to England on private affairs;"—and he returns to England; and though the period for his absence is completed, he never returns; he is paid his salary up to a certain period, and there is an end of the connexion.—The same observation applies to Sicard. That old, and tried, and faithful servant, is sent home from Naples on the ground of private affairs, her royal highness re-
* See p. 360 of the present Volume.
1344
quiring his return to England—he expects to be sent for, but he is never recalled again, and only goes back in consequence of the death of his late majesty to communicate to her that event.
Then, my lords, Mr. Mills is called to prove the character of her royal highness, and then come those material witnesses, Mr. Flinn and Mr. Hownam, upon whose testimony I shall make only one observation. Mr. Hownam has stated to your lordships, and he has put his credibility upon that test, that although he saw Bergami dining with her as a courier—her royal highness walking arm in arm with him—those theatrical exhibitions at the Villa d'Este—and the sleeping under the tent—he saw nothing indecorous. He is asked, whether he ever represented to her royal highness the impropriety of this, and entreated her not to admit him at her table? He denies the fact—he cannot recollect the fact—at last he screws himself up to say, he does not believe it—Captain Briggs is called before you—ar witness whom my learned friends have ventured to panegyrize and introduce as their own witness, an honourable naval officer whom the breath of suspicion has never touched—he is called before you, and proves that on board the Leviathan, lieut. Hownam told him he had gone upon his knees and entreated her royal highness not to admit Bergami to her table. My lords, that declaration of lieut. Hownam is either true or false; if it be true, it speaks the sense he entertained, at the time, of the conduct of her royal highness; if it be nottrue, and he did not see it, I say he felt at the moment he was talking to captain; I Briggs, the degradation to which her majesty had subjected herself, by admitting a menial servant to her table—he felt that he was implicated in it by setting down with him; and to clear his character in the opinion of a brother naval officer higher in rank than himself, he frames that false excuse to palliate his own conduct, and to show that he did feel at that time how degrading it was, and that it was I his duty to represent that to her royal highness. Take it either way, my lords, and that fact is conclusive as to lieut. Hownam, as to his feeling at the time—a feeling at variance with that at your lord ships' bar. I can make great allowance for that officer—he is a son of an old servant of the family, and has received his; promotion from the influence and bounty of that individual—he feels it important

1345
to prop up the character of his benefactress; but it manifests, in the strongest terms, his sense of the conduct of her royal highness at the time he was addressing captain Briggs. My lords, with that observation I will dismiss the testimony of lieut. Hownam. I have already told your lordships how the matter took a different direction from that period; I have commented upon the testimony subsequently adduced. But now let me call your recollection to the pledge given by Mr. Brougham when he addressed your lordships; and that I may not misstate it, let me read it in his own words. My lords, lie says, as to Mariette, "the Queen has hitherto never known any thing to her prejudice, and she will therefore be presented before your lordships, and you will have an opportunity of hearing her account of those transactions which have been so falsely told by others; but I repeat," he says, "that it is gratuitous on our part—that we do it voluntarily, from an excess of caution, lest any one might now suppose that there was any witness whom we dare not to call.*" Such, my lords, is the manner in which my learned friend introduced his pledge to your lordships, that Mariette should be produced at your bar. How that pledge has been kept, your lordships have seen. Let me examine, for a moment, the different distinct reasons given for the withdrawing of Mariette.
My lords; I saw, after lieut. Hownam's evidence, that my learned friend was, from that moment, diverting your lordships attention, and the attention of the country, from the case, because he never meant to produce another witness to the facts. And accordingly, after the affair of Restelli, and after the harangue on baron d'Ende, he came forward, and told your lordships, that it became impossible for them further to proceed in her majesty defence; that those circumstances prevented his further prosecuting it in the way he wished, and he should call no more witnesses. Then came my learned friends, Mr. Denman and Dr. Lushington—and the reasons they have given are the most extraordinary I ever heard adduced in a court of justice, for not calling witnesses who were to prove the truth. Their hypothesis is, that all our testimony is false; that it is founded in a foul and scandalous conspiracy, of which
* See p. 199 of the present Volume.
1346
there is not the slightest testimony. They say, we will produce witnesses to prove that all your testimony is false; but unluckily lieut. Flinn has flinched under cross-examination; he has not stood that which is the criterion of truth;—and therefore Mariette Bron and the other witnesses are not to be produced at your lordships bar, because they have a fear and an apprehension, that although they have come here to speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, they may, upon the cross-examination, unfortunately let slip something which, though true, may injure the case upon the part of her majesty! Good God! my lords, was ever such a reason given? If a witness is to speak the truth, what fear has he of a cross-examination? Not all the ingenuity of the advocate can extract from him that which is not true; because, clothed in the armour of truth, he is to speak to the facts fairly, and all the terror of a cross-examination must vanish before the person who comes to speak the truth, and the whole truth. But, my lords, the whole truth must not be spoken before your lordships, as in the case of lieut. Hownam, where a great deal was extorted from him which they never meant should appear, and which did not appear in his examination in chief. This case they are so anxious to leave free from all suspicion. Those persons so desirous of producing every satisfaction on your lordships minds, give this excuse for not producing Mariette Bron. But another excuse was given yesterday by my learned friend Mr. Brougham—that intelligence they had received at that moment was the reason why they did not before call Mariette Bron. But, my lords, who are the other witnesses whom they have not called? If Mariette Bron, the sister of Demont, is suspected by them, and they are apprehensive she may not speak the truth, let me, for a moment, call your lordships attention to the other witnesses whom they might have called. My lords, I mention Bergami himself, for the sake of making only one observation—but Bergami might have been called; and though my learned friend, Mr. Denman, thinks it is unheard-of in the annals of your lordships, that the person accused of adultery should be called to disprove the case, there is an instance in Campbell's divorce in the year 1799, where major Hooke, charged with the adultery, was produced at your lordships bar, on

1347
behalf of the female. Not only is Bergami not produced, but lie does not venture to accompany that mistress, whom he has so faithfully served, and to attend her in all her difficulties in this country. But, my lords, all the family of Bergami are dismissed at St. Omer's—no, not dismissed—but he returned, in one of her majesty's carriages, to the Villa Bergami, where now, in the absence of her majesty, the wife of Bergami also has been seen. But, to touch the shores of England, to introduce him to the people of England, would not do for her royal highness; and neither he, nor one of his family, ventures to accompany her royal highness. But, I ask, if there has been no impropriety in this intercourse—if he be this faithful servant—why is he not brought to this country? Why does not her majesty say, "I had been deserted by all my English suite; I have chosen and preferred this man for his merits; he shall still be my chamberlain." And her chamberlain he still is; for we have not heard of his being dismissed. I have heard of a vice-chamberlain being appointed, since her majesty arrived; but I have not heard of a chamberlain, and I believe he still occupies the station.
But, my lords, let me just call your recollection to that which was stated by my learned friend, as to what he should prove with respect to the promotion of Bergami. Oh! your lordships have been left in a happy ignorance of the merits for which this man was raised to his present-rank. It is to be proved by sir W. Cell and Mr. Craven, that at the time he was hired, there was the best of characters given to him by the marquis of Ghisiliari; that there was a promise of promotion held out, and that that was one of the motives operating upon her royal high-ness's mind. Nay, it was to be proved, that he had not only been honoured with the confidence, but had dined at the table of general Pino, but which colonel Teuille cannot recollect to have been the case. Sicaicl is called. He developes what was the real hiring at Milan. So far from the promise of any advancement, he was only hired at the time as a temporary courier to go as far as Naples. The promise was this, that if, upon the arrival at Naples, there could be a situation provided through a vacancy, he should be received as a servant on the establishment. But, your lordships have been kept in ignorance of the meritorious ser-
1348
vices of this favoured man. What was there at Naples—what was there at Milan—what was there from the time of the departure from Naples, that called for those extraordinary favours? What was there that caused him to introduce into the family, unknown to them at the time, his relations? Faustina is not known to Dr. Holland to be one of his relations; the countess Oldi is not acknowledged as such at the time. How is it that Louis Bergami is entitled to a seat at her majesty's table? But her majesty, who, according to the evidence of Sicard, never before, under any circumstances, admitted a servant to her table, has admitted, not only the favoured Bergami, but his sisters, and Louis also, without the slightest cause assigned. My lords, are not these things strong grounds of suspicion and inference? I say they are grounds of the strongest; and when coupled with the rest of the case, furnish your lordships with a ground to account for this rapid advancement and undeserved promotion. But, if they dare not produce Bergami at your lordships bar, how is it that the countess Oldi is not produced? Throughout the whole course of the evidence, where female character is to be supported, only one female witness, and that female witness only speaking to her royal highness's conduct for twenty-four days, lady Charlotte Lindsay, is produced by her royal highness. But, my lords, who is so fit, by her own admission, as the dame d'honour who was about her person, her immediate companion, and who has been with her from the period of her English suite quitting her at Milan, up to her arrival in this country? That lady of honour, is she such a discredit to her royal highness. that she is not to accompany her? Is she to be left without a dame d'honour, and to travel up from Italy without a single attendant of that rank? My lords, I say, that the countess Oldi is the very witness for that purpose. Count Vassal! has conducted her from Dover; and there can be no suspicion of her in the mind of her royal highness. She has been one of the family; she has been with her through all her travels and all her journies; and she was opened by my learned friends as a person to be called to negative the facts stated to have occurred in the carriage, on the journey from Rome to Sinigaglia. But she is not called to negative those facts. Who else is there, whom they ought to have pro-

1349
duced? Where is William Austin? Why is not he produced? Is he not a fit person to be called as a witness? He is now of the age of nineteen or twenty; he might have contradicted those witnesses. Where, too, is Hieronimus? At Branden-burgh-house; but not produced. Where is Schiavini? He also is here, and not produced; though it is sworn by some of the witnesses, that he did acts, with regard to the tent on board the polacre, which it was important to contradict. Where is Louis Bergami? Not called! Where is Camera who, also, was on the journey? Not produced! Where is the Jew harper, as to whom there was a cross-examination of Demont? He is not produced to contradict her. And Carlini, who was on board the polacre and at Aum? But he is not produced by her royal highness. Besides which, there are the whole family of Bergami, Faustina, the mother, Francisco, Camera, Bernardo, and not one of them are produced before your lordships, though my learned friends undertook to contradict every part of their evidence. They called lieut. Flinn and lieut. Hownam, and, not content with that, they afterwards called count Vassali; but those other persons have all such unfortunate nerves, or such treacherous memories, or they are afraid that the truth will be got out of them at your lordships bar—and therefore not one of them is produced before you! I say, my lords, this fact proves more against her royal highness than any thing else in the whole cause, particularly after that which is stated by Mr. Brougham, and after the frivolous excuses made, as to Mariette, which can have no application to the rest, and which, in the case of Mariette, failed to satisfy any mind as to the reason of her not being called.
I congratulate your lordships, that I have just arrived at the conclusion of my address to you; because I am sure your patience must be exhausted, and your attention fatigued. My lords, my duty has been an anxious one—it has been to bring before your lordships the evidence in the ease, I have strictly confined myself to that duty. I trust your lordships will at least acquit me of having, in the course of those observations, made any unnecessary appeals to your feelings or your passions. I have done that which was the only duty your lordships had imposed upon me, and which I was anxious to discharge to the best of my ability. I have fairly com-
1350
mented, as I trust, upon the evidence produced. That, my lords, was. my duty-But it seems there is another code of duty for advocates of the accused, that has just been discovered for my learned friend Mr. Brougham. The duty of the advocate of the accused is, to protect his client at all hazards—nay, separating even" (he says) "the duty of a patriot from that of an advocate, he must go on, reckless of consequences, if his fate should unhappily be to involve his country in confusion for his client." Such is the text! Your lordships have had the Speeches for a comment. My lords, what duty was imposed upon my learned friends?—to lay before you the case of the Queen, to establish her innocence from the charges exhibited against her—that was the duty imposed upon them—that they have attempted to do by the evidence they have given. My lords, have they confined themselves to that duty? No, my lords; to them it is permitted to launch into invectives against all the constituted authorities of the realm. The Monarch is not to be spared—modern history is to be ransacked—the annals of corrupt Rome are to be searched, in order to find out some quotation by which the feelings of the Monarch may be wounded—by which the monarchy may be brought into disrespect in the country. The cruellest tyrant, the man the most detested in antiquity, is to be brought forward as a supposed parallel in this case. Nay, the Monarch is not the only one to suffer from the imputations. Your lordships are not spared—no one concerned in the proceeding is spared—by the observations of my learned friends. My lords, I will not say I pardon them. Perhaps some excuse is to be alleged for them, under such a trying situation. If the Queen was innocent, those topics were perfectly irrelevant and unnecessary. The Queen's innocence cannot be established by hurling envenomed darts against other persons. No, my lords, innocence stands secure in its own defence—innocence wants not to find motives for revenge. It is time enough, when her innocence is established—if ever that period shall arrive—to give vent to those feelings; but during the time of its being established, I cannot help thinking that the path of duty was clear before them.
But it appears, from the conclusion of my learned friend Mr. Brougham's eloquent speech, that the public have pronounced a verdict upon tins occasion.

1351
The public, my lords, have pronounced I no verdict. There is a part of the community, undoubtedly, who have attempted to do so—who have, by the most base, by the worst and the most insidious means, endeavoured to deceive the well-meaning, and the loyal, and the good part of the community,—who have, by every means in their power, attempted, during this investigation, to blacken the characters of all concerned in it, and of the witnesses who were produced upon the occasion. And, my lords, while they had the cause of the Queen in their mouths, they had another object in their hearts—that of change and revolution. That is their object. To further that object, this has been done. It would pain me, as it must every one—it will pain persons in future, who shall read the annals of the present period—to find that any countenance could be given to such attempts. I trust it has not been given by the illustrious person accused, but the historian will draw a veil over this part of the transaction, not only brought before your lordships as a ground on which you are to pronounce your decision; but you have been told, undoubtedly in magnificent language—in a manner I have rarely seen surpassed—in effect great and considerable—you have been told in the peroration of my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, that your lordships are to pause—that you are standing upon the brink of a precipice—that it will go forth your judgment, if it goes forth against the Queen, but it will be the only judgment you will ever pronounce which will fail of its object, and return upon those who give it. Nay, my lords, you are called upon afterwards, as the only means of saving the honour of the Crown and protecting the purity of the Altar—you are called upon to do that at all hazards, at all risks whatever; you are called upon to pronounce a verdict of acquittal, because, forsooth, such is the judgment of what my learned friends choose to call the country, and because your lordships are to be actuated by such intimidations I My lords, God forbid that the time should ever arrive when such threats should have any weight in this assembly! I address persons of high honour, and character unstained, whose decisions hitherto have commanded the respect of the couhtry—and why? because they have been founded in justice. My lords, the Throne will be best pro-
1352
tected, the Altar best preserved, by a judgment pronounced by your lordships, according to the evidence which has been produced before you. Upon that evidence I rest the conclusion, having commented upon it as it was my duty to do. The result to which I think it inevitably leads is a verdict of Guilty. If your lordships shall be of that opinion, I am sure you will pronounce it with firmness. It will be satisfactory to your own conscience—it will, sooner or later, be satisfactory to the country.
Mr. Solicitor Generalthen addressed their lordships as follows:
My Lords;—
Never did an individual standing at your lordships bar stand in more need of your indulgence than myself upon this occasion. I have, my lords, to address you upon a subject already so completely canvassed and exhausted, that I can scarcely expect to throw any new light upon it. I have, my lords, to address you when my mind and faculties are jaded and exhausted by the continued application and consideration of the same ideas. My lords, I labour under another difficulty, no less great than those which I have pointed out; namely, that I am to follow my learned friend the attorney-general, who, in his address upon this occasion, has taken such a minute, and at the same time such a complete and comprehensive view of this important subject; who has addressed you in such a powerful, such an impressive, such an irresistible speech, as must of necessity carry conviction to the minds of every one who has heard it. I am, my lords, to follow him upon the same subject, without any alteration whatever of the facts, and I feel that almost every observation that I can by possibility address to you, has been, in a great measure, anticipated. My lords, under these circumstances, if I were to follow my own inclinations and my own feelings alone, I would not add one single word upon this subject; but, I have a duty to perform, which, however painful and however personally irksome to myself is the task of performing it, I must endeavour to discharge with manliness and fortitude. We are here engaged in the consideration of a subject perhaps of the greatest interest that ever agitated the feelings of this empire. I am commanded to assist my learned friend in the discharge of

1353
his duty; I must not shrink from the task; I must endeavour to perform it, with the best ability and power that I can upon such an occasion command.
My lords; when this case was originally opened to your lordships, it must have been perfectly clear to every individual at all conversant with the investigation of truth in courts of justice, that from the wide range of facts, the number 'of witnesses who were to be called, and the period over which the inquiry was to extend, there must, in the result of this investigation, be a considerable body of conflicting evidence. My lords, my learned friend and myself, in considering this subject, were aware that that must of necessity be the case. We were prepared to expect it; but knowing at the same time the truth of the story—being satisfied that we were not coming here for the purpose of endeavouring to establish that which was false—we knew that, although there might be conflicting evidence as to some parts of the case, the consequence and result would be, that the main features of the case, the great outline of it, would be established by our own evidence, and in all probability by the evidence adduced on the part of the defence, in [such a manner as to carry the fullest conviction to the minds of those who were to decide upon it.
My lords; it is not my intention, after the elaborate speech of my learned friend, addressed to every part of this important subject—it is not my intention of course to go in detail through the whole of this great mass of evidence. I shall take a much narrower course; and in the observations which I am about to present to your lordships, I shall discard from my view, sedulously and attentively, every part of the case upon which there is any thing like conflicting evidence—not, my lords, that it will be discarded ultimately from your view, because where there is a conflict of testimony, it will be for you ultimately to decide between us; but, as my learned friend has sifted and examined every part of the case, with so much minuteness, as he has laid the case in this respect so fully and entirely before your lordships, I conceive that I shall best discharge the duty which is cast upon me, by taking a much narrower view, and confining myself only to a particular part of the case, ranging itself in the manner I am now about to point out to your lordships. My lords, the course which I mean to pursue
1354
then, is, to comment upon and to lay before your lordships those facts which are not disputed, or are feebly contested on the other side—those facts which are established by witnesses who have not been contradicted in the course of this inquiry, and whose character have not been impeached—those facts which are established by witnesses who might have been contradicted, my learned friends, being challenged to contradict them, and who have not been contradicted in the course of this inquiry—and ultimately, my lords, those facts which have been established by the witnesses called on the part of the defence. My lords, in this view of the case, I steer clear of every objection that is made on the other side; and I think our lordships, viewing the case in this light, with a body of evidence all tending one way and unopposed, will see that a case is made out so clear, so distinct, so complete in all its parts, as to carry conviction to the minds of those even who are least disposed to be convinced upon this important subject.
My lords; there is one feature of this case which can never be too frequently adverted to. It ought to be considered with precision, because it appears to me to lead directly to the conclusion of guilt. I do not mean to say that taking that alone your lordships would infer guilt from it; but it is a feature so important in this case; rendered so important from the manner in which it has been handled on the other side, the attempts to explain it, the futility of those attempts, the entire failure of those attempts, that I feel myself bound, notwithstanding the observations already made, again to press it upon your lordships attention. My lords, I allude to the elevation of Bergami. I need not recapitulate the facts of the case. He was hired as a courier, as a courier for that journey only from Rome to Naples. In a few months afterwards we find him elevated to the situation of equerry and chamberlain—made a knight of Malta (a very high and great distinction), a Sicilian baron, a knight of the Holy Sepulchre, and in possession of a very considerable estate in the neighbourhood of Milan. My lords, these are facts which are not disputed. It becomes then, my lords, material to consider how they apply, and how they are met on the other side. My learned friends feel the force of them—they feel how irresistible the weight of them is in this inquiry—

1355
and, in the discharge of their duty, they of course endeavour to give some explanation. Now, my lords, let us inquire into this explanation; let us sift, let us examine it, and see how completely, how entirely, it fails. My learned friend, Mr. Brougham, in the course of his address to you, stated that all this was very natural; Bergami was born a gentleman; he was reduced in his circumstances merely by the events of the French Revolution; he had sold his estate to pay his father's debts. My lords, this was the statement made by my learned friend. If the facts were true, every circumstance so stated might have been established in evidence, and would of necessity have been established in evidence. Then, my lords, when my learned friends on the other side spend entire days in drawing a distinction or in making a comparison between the speech of my learned friend the attorney-general and the evidence in the cause; when we come to observe the course which they themselves take, we find their statement still more wide from the proof than even the representation which they made of the statement of my learned friend. My lords, what is the evidence they have laid before your lordships with respect to this point? They call colonel Teuillé, who gives you this account of Bergami: He tells you, he held a situation equivalent to that of a serjeant in the French army; that he was a private courier of general Pino—and we have it in evidence uncontradicted, that he was in the service of general Pino at the wages of three livres a day, waiting regularly at table. That is the evidence as to the previous condition of Bergami so painted by my learned friends—reduced in his circumstances, selling his estate to pay his father's debts! When circumstances of that kind are stated by my learned friends and not proved, what would they say if I were to introduce the confinement of Bergami in Lodi and state what were the circumstances of the confinement in that prison? Now, my lords, let me go farther. My learned friends say, "it is quite consistent; that the statement is correct; he had the manners of a gentleman, and that accounts for his extraordinary elevation." I beg for a moment to direct your lordships attention specifically and precisely to the evidence upon that subject, and among others to refer to the evidence of Mr. Sicard, as so distinct and so precise as to leave no
1356
doubt of the extravagance of this statement. He is asked, "Did he appear superior to the situation in which he was hired? He was not quite so chatty as the Italians generally were; but I believe he behaved very properly so far as I saw. I was never acquainted with any couriers in general, but he behaved very well in my opinion."—"Did he appear to be superior to persons in his situation?" "Not particularly; he behaved very properly in his situation, civil and obliging and attentive to his duty. He might have been rather more of a gentleman than of the lower sort."* This is the description given by Mr. Sicard, a witness called on the other side, with respect to the manners of this individual—his manners being relied on as one of the main reasons that led to his extraordinary promotion. It may be said, that Mr. Sicard is not able to form a very correct judgment upon a question of this kind; but we have the earl of Guildford, who dined at the same table with Bergami after his promotion, and, on two different occasions, was formally introduced to him by her royal highness, "Voici monsieur Pergami." He has good opportunities, therefore, of observing his conduct and manners, and this is the question put to him: "From the opportunities you had of observing the behaviour of Bergami, could you form any opinion of his being superior to the situation in which he had formerly lived?" "No, it did not strike me that he was." The question and answer were read at the request of the solicitor-general of the Queen to his lordship, and he stated that the answer was correct. So much, then, my lords, as to the manners of Bergami, as they appear by those two witnesses called on the part of the defence.
Sir W. Gellis called, my lords, to speak to the same subject. Sir W. Gell had seen him upon many occasions. On sir W. Gell's evidence I shall make no particular comment; but it appears, as compared with the evidence of Mr. Craven, to be rather too figurative in its style and character. He is asked, "Upon any occasion when Pergami has come to see you, or you have seen him, when the Queen has not been present, what has his conduct and demeanor been towards you as to manners?" "I should say, on all occasions, rather more respectful than was
* See p. 411 of the present Volume.

1357
necessary: he generally required to be pressed to sit down, that sort of behaviour." Why, my lords, he was overawed by the superior dignity and deportment of sir W. Gell; he would not sit down without being pressed, and sir W. Gell is called to show he had been born in the situation of a gentleman; that when advanced to the station of a gentleman, he conducted himself according to the character and behaviour of a gentleman, and showed he had been born and intended for that rank. Nothing can be more decisive than the language of sir W. Gell upon that subject. "Was there any thing in the manners of Pergami, which made it disagreeable to you as a gentleman, to share with him the duties of chamberlain?" "Quite on the contrary; he was remarkably attentive to me, and would have handed me down stairs with candles, if I would have let him I was obliged to explain to him that it hurried me, being lame, and to request he would let it alone." "Do you consider, that that conduct on the part of Pergami, was the conduct of a gentleman?" "Perfectly so to me." Now, my lords, really this is too much! Your lordships have this further in the evidence of Whitcombe—he was at the time in the situation of chamberlain, a Sicilian baron, and a knight of Malta, and restored by the Queen to his original station in society. Mr. Craven, accompanied by Whitcombe, waits upon her. What passed on the stair-case? He puts out his hand, and privately presses the hand of Whitcombe as an old friend, Whitcombe being the servant of Mr. Craven. My lords, is this not sufficient to show you that this is all a fiction on the other side? They think it necessary to account for the rapid promotion of Bergami, and to make something like a show of defence in this respect; because, if they do not, the evidence must lead but to one conclusion.
My lords; again something is said of the merits of Bergami, to account for his extraordinary promotion. I have anxiously looked for some extraordinary merit to account for this; but there is not the slightest evidence in the cause, no attempt at proof—"a respectful obedient servant, and attentive to his duty"—this is all the proof pointed out by the evidence on the other side, to account for the elevation in about twelve months, from a servant waiting at table, to a knight of Malta, a Sicilian baron, the proprietor of a consider-
1358
able estate! My learned friend, Mr. Brougham, says, "Oh! this advancement was gradual, it resembled more the progress of a man struggling against opposition, than the manner in which love advances its votaries." "My lords, the fact contradicts this supposition. But there is another most singular argument. It is said, that there was a promise, at the time he entered the service, of promotion. Now, let us see, my lords. Taking the more favourable witness—for sir W. Gell on these occasions is always the foremost—he says, that the marquis Ghisiliari said he hoped, if Bergami behaved well in the family, he would be gradually advanced. But, my lords, I like the evidence of Mr. Craven much better than that of sir W. Gell; for this reason, that it was given in a much more plain way, a much more cautious way, in a much more considerate manner, and because it is confirmed by the evidence of Sicard. He is asked, "Did he state whether he had any knowledge of the family of Pergami?. He said he had known his family a great while, and that he was interested about him. "State what the marquis said as to the probability of promotion?"—"He said that he hoped if he behaved well, he would be continued in the family." Now, my learned friends were not satisfied with that answer, and therefore they put another question: "Was any thing said about advancement or promotion?"—"Yes; marquis Ghisiliari said, that he hoped he might remain as a servant out of livery in the house when her royal highness stopped any where." Now, your lordships will observe how that is confirmed by the testimony of Sicard—this man Bergami, this Serjeant of dragoons, had been hired merely for the journey to Naples—the marquis Ghisiliari knew this, and knowing he had been a courier attached to himself and to general Pino, he might say, "the situation of courier is a little below his condition, therefore I hope he will be gradually advanced," and he desires he should not be discharged at Naples—"wherever her royal highness stops, I hope that he may be continued in her service,"—in what situation? only "as a servant out of livery!" Now, my lords, let me refer to the evidence of Sicard, "Were you in the habit of engaging all the servants?" "I was."—"Were you in the habit of engaging them all alike as you did Pergami, without any communication with her royal highness?" "That

1359
was an exception on the journey; he was only engaged as far as Naples." Now, my lords, let us see how the case stands. This man is originally a Serjeant and the private courier to general Pino—he is a servant waiting at table, receiving wages at the rate of three livres a day—he is out of place, and is engaged for the purpose of going merely as far as Naples—a person connected with him, the marquis Ghisiliari, says, "I am desirous of being of service to him; when your royal highness settles at any place, let him be continued as a servant out of livery." And my learned friends are reduced to the necessity of stating this as a positive engagement entered into, of advancement and promotion—for the purpose of justifying, what? for the purpose of justifying this most extraordinary elevation! Now, my lords, what is the inference which they draw from all this? Is it possible that we can shut our eyes to the inference which must of necessity be drawn? Can your lordships be deceived by all these witnesses? And when my learned friends are reduced to the necessity of insisting upon explanation of this kind, which are so futile and so contemptible, and which ultimately so completely fail them—what is the inference your lordships must of necessity draw? To what are we to ascribe this merit One of our best dramatic authors, in speaking upon subjects of this kind, has given us this solution, for your lordships will find that it is put into the mouth of a Roman empress, in a situation, and under circumstances which I will not describe:
"——Thread-bare chastity
"Was poor in the advancement of her creatures;
"Wantonness, magnificent."
My lords; that is the inference which we draw. We say, the facts lead necessarily to that inference. We say, it is impossible, connected with the other circumstances of the case, that your lordships should not come to that conclusion.
But, my lords, let me direct your attention to another circumstance; namely, the elevation or advancement of the family of Bergami. That family is successively introduced into the house: my learned friend, Mr. Denman, attempts to explain that. He says, at Genoa Bergami had got into the situation of master of the household. He thought some explanation was necessary. The explanation he gives is utterly unfounded in fact; for it turns
1360
out, by reference to the Minutes, that he was not at that time master of the household—and yet three or four members of the family are introduced into the household at Genoa!
Now, my lords, I beg to direct your lordships attention to the transactions at Genoa. All the English suite had left the service of her royal highness—it is not necessary for me to say from what motive. Lady Charlotte Campbell went as far as Milan, and there retired. What would one suppose that, under such circumstances, her royal highness would do? Would she not have applied to some English families of distinction to allow some of the younger branches to be attached to her person? My learned friends say, No; there were causes existing in this country to prevent it. My lords, there were no causes existing in this country that could, by possibility, prevent it. She was at that time the mother of the heir presumptive of the Crown—she was connected with some of the most powerful individuals in this kingdom, all of whom would have been disposed to give her countenance, assistance, and support in the attainment of an object every way so honourable. But then my learned friends say, it was impossible this could be effected. Do my learned friends show that any attempt was made to accomplish it? Do my learned friends show an application made to any individual of rank and character, to supply any of those places which had been deserted? My lords, it appears as if she was desirous they should be excluded. Lady Glenbervie was still at Genoa. Does it appear, that any application was made to her to join her royal highness? There is no evidence to show she was desirous that the places lately occupied by those distinguished individuals should be occupied by persons of that station and character.
My lords; we are told it had been communicated to her royal highness, that she was surrounded by spies even at Naples. My lords, that rendered it still more necessary, that she should be surrounded by persons who would be a security against any attempts of that kind, and who would come forward to speak to the rectitude of her conduct—the best possible defence against any attempts of that nature.—My lords, instead of pursuing this course, which would naturally be pursued by a woman of the character which my learned friends would point out her royal highness

1361
to have been at that moment, what Is the course that she pursues? She engages in her service the countess Oldi. From what motive? Has any reason been assigned, any plausible pretext even attempted, by my learned friends? Let us examine the qualifications of the countess Oldi, and see whether the description of her character, her acquirements, her situation, given by the witnesses, do not show, to absolute demonstration, that there was some covert motive and reason in that most extraordinary appointment? In the first place, your lordships hear that the Queen could speak only a word or two of Italian; so that, according to the statement of Mr. Denman, it was necessary she should employ an Italian to speak to the servants of Naples; and it appears also from the testimony of Dr. Holland, that in Italian she could carry on no conversation with her lady of honour—Countess Oldi could speak no French. So that those two persons were in that situation that they could not carry on the slightest conversation.—My lords, there is another fact; namely, the manners of this lady. Sir W. Gell says, that she was a very decent, rather good-looking, respectable, modest, lady. My lord Guildford says, "not particularly vulgar—the exact shade of vulgarity I cannot how charge my memory with." So that here is a lady who cannot speak French, her royal highness cannot speak Italian, the lady not particularly vulgar, the precise shade of vulgarity cannot be fixed—and this lady, without any assignable cause, is chosen to supply the place of those distinguished individuals whose name's have been so frequently mentioned But, my lords, another circumstance—this was a mystery in the household, it was not known that she was the sister of Bergami. Why, my lords, was it to be kept a secret? If every thing was fair—if there was no improper motive—if the parties were not ashamed of the transaction—why was it to be kept a secret? It appears, that Demont did not know it for a considerable time; lieutenant Hownam did not know it for some time; Dr. Holland had not the slightest idea of her connexion with Bergami. My lords, it appears also, that when lord Guildford appeared at the Villa d'Este, Bergami was introduced in due form:—" Voici monsieur Bergami the countess Oldi was introduced, sat at table, and my lord Guildford went away without the slightest idea that she had
1362
any relationship with Bergami. Now, my lords, putting all the circumstances together, and connecting them with the extraordinary elevation of Bergami, what is the conclusion to which they lead? A lady vulgar, "not particularly vulgar," the precise shade of whose vulgarity cannot be determined, decent in her manners, according to sir W. Gell (always desirous of putting the best face upon it), speaking a language her royal highness cannot understand, introduced without being acknowledged as his sister into the household. For what reason is this? To afford facilities of communication—to protect the intercourse—to screen it from the observation of others. We must shut our eyes and blind our understandings—we must distort the observations we have made with respect to the transactions of mankind—if we do not come to that conclusion. No other solution can, by possibility, be given.
Now, my lords, while I am speaking as to the family of Bergami, I beg to go a little further. Your lordship sees Bergami is introduced wearing a livery—twelve or thirteen members of his family are introduced one after another—her royal highness is fenced round with them, and Bergami is protected so far from the observation of strangers. But there is an exception, and a most remarkable exception, speaking emphatically upon the subject, namely, the wife of Bergami. My lords, Mr. Hownam says, "I was three years in the service. I was at the Barona repeatedly, but I never once saw his wife." Another witness tells you, that she was at the Barona upon one occasion, when her royal highness was coming, and she was sent off—the expression was, "she escaped." Now, my lords, how do we explain this? The child is brought into the house—the wife never makes her appearance—she submits to any sacrifice, rather than interfere with tin's connexion between her husband and her royal highness. My lords, I put those facts together, and they lead to a strong inference. I do not mean to say, that, taking them by themselves, unconnected with the other circumstances, you can act upon them; but they lead to very strong suspicions—they are facts of a most striking kind, as introductory to those scenes, to which I shall have to direct your attention.
My lords; there is another circumstance, which is not disputed, and which is remark-

1363
able—the contiguity of rooms upon all occasions—upon all occasions, the facility of approach afforded to Bergami to the bedroom of her royal highness, to the exclusion of all other persons, except the countess Oldi. Why do I direct your attention particularly to this point? Because it is so marked by the evidence in support of the bill, and the attention of my learned friends on the other side was so distinctly drawn to it. They might so completely have contradicted every statement we have made in this respect; and they did not attempt to do so. It is therefore a fact confirmed beyond the possibility of doubt. At the Villa d'Este there was only a small cabinet separating the bed-room of her royal highness from that of Bergami, and the rest of the family were in a different part of the establishment. There was an architect employed on the part of the Queen, to take plans of the Villa d'Este, undoubtedly with a view to this proceeding: they had an opportunity of taking plans of the Barona, the disposition of which was precisely sworn to; they had an opportunity of taking a plan of the Villa Villani, and all the other houses in which her royal highness resided; and they have not ventured to produce them before your lordships. You have, then, in addition to the inference arising from the advancement of Bergami, and the advancement of his family, a laboured arrangement, to afford to Bergami facility of access to the bedroom of her royal highness, to the exclusion of all others, uncontradicted by any evidence though they had abundant means of contradicting it if it was not true.
Now, my lords, having directed your attention to these circumstances, what explanation can be given with respect to the arrangement of rooms? I have looked in vain for any explanation by my learned friends on the other side. Mr. Williams says, "Oh! all this was intended to guard against surprise, against some danger with which she was threatened." My lords, have we any evidence to prove this? Are we to be led away by confident assertions of counsel? I look in vain for any thing of the kind. My friend is learned and laborious—he introduces quotations in every possible way, for the purpose of ornamenting his address to your lordships. I look around to see whether I can possibly discover to what he refers, or from what source he takes this
1364
idea of a "surprise." I have not been able to discover it, except in a grave and serious author, with whose writings I know my learned friend to be very conversant—I mean, Foote, in the Trip to Calais, where I see something like a hint for this. Your lordships may recollect what I allude to—a conversation between Minniken the chamber-maid and O'Donovan the Irish chairman, respecting the protection afforded to their mistress by sir Henry Hornby. My lords, I will state the passage. O'Donovan was stating the extraordinary friendship of sir Henry Hornby—be says, "My lord was obliged to go about his affairs into the North for a moment, and left his disconsolate lady behind him in London"—Mrs. Minniken." Poor gentlewoman!"—O'Donovan. "Upon which his friend, sir Henry, used to go and stay there all day, to amuse and divert her."—Mrs. Minniken. "How good natured that was in sir Henry."—O'Donovan. "Nay, he carried his friendship much farther than that; for my lady, as there were many highwaymen and footpads about, was afraid that some of them would break into the house in the night, and so desired sir Henry' Hornby to lie there every night."—Mrs. Minniken." Good soul! and I suppose he consented."—Now, I really cannot from any other source give an explanation of this surprise. There is not a particle of evidence of that description, except that of which we have heard so much—. I mean that famous story of the baron Ompteda. From the beginning to the end of this inquiry; nay, long before this inquiry commenced—not only here, but elsewhere, have I heard my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, state, "I shall prove a detestable plot and conspiracy against her royal highness, to break open her drawers and to steal her keys." I doubted how this would be evidence in the cause; and my learned friend, the civilian, says, "Oh! I will show how it is evidence—we will show how it operated upon her mind." He silences us—in that way it might be evidence. We have waited day after day—baron Ompteda has been, rung in our ears—they have endeavoured to state declarations of servants, but have procured none. My learned friend may say, it cannot be proved. If it cannot be proved, the probability is, it never existed; but if it is true, there is the celebrated Berstett, to whom reference has been made. My learned friends have had

1365
ample funds afforded them on their signature, that they were necessary—why was not Berstett produced, to make out the statement of Mr. Brougham. But, my learned friend found, from the observation of the attorney-general, that this was a case requiring an explanation. And what is the evidence he gives, or the attempted explanation, or the time at which explanation is given? In the last stage of the case a letter is produced—I must not call it by a monosyllable—but, a letter is produced by a most extraordinary manoeuvre—I say (to apply a phrase which my learned friend has applied to us) by one of those slippery manœuvres, for which my learned friend is so celebrated—extending his hands—opening his mouth—he rushes in, and interrupts the proceedings, and says, "My lords, I have received most important intelligence; for God's sake let it be immediately read!" My learned friend knew it was not evidence—he knew it was not admissible in that stage of the cause—he knew it was contrary to all rule, all decorum, to all propriety, to all sense of the situation in which he stands, to state the contents of that letter. I have a right, my lords, when I see such conduct, to doubt the contents of that letter, and the period when that letter was received. So much, then, my lords, as to this most extraordinary part of the proceedings—this surprise, this alarm, this trepidation, and so on, that was the occasion of their perpetually recurring arguments.
But, my lords, there is a most unfortunate circumstance which confirms the perpetual contiguity of the apartments, and destroys completely the foundation on which it is put on the other side; and that is, what took place on board the Leviathan. Was there any "surprise," to be apprehended on board a British ship of war? any personal danger to her royal highness, surrounded by captain Briggs, and his crew? The charge is futile; and yet we find her royal highness desirous of carrying on the same system as she had on shore—the arrangements are changed, Bergarai is placed in a situation to have immediate access to her bed-room; and, so great an impression does it make upon her majesty in reference to her case, that she sends lieut. Hownam to Portsmouth to ascertain that fact.
Mr. Denman.—That is not so—he stated it was of his own accord he went.
Mr. Brougkam.—Do not interrupt him
1366
—it would be endless, if you interrupt' him whenever he does so.
Mr. Solicitor General.—I should certainly take it as a favour of my learned friend to interrupt me whenever I misstate any fact.
Mr. Brougham.—We shall be here till midnight.
Mr. Solicitor General.—I have not, I conceive, mis-stated a single fact, except that I may have drawn a wrong conclusion, as to the motives for the conduct of my learned friend Mr. Brougham. My lords; having made these observations, I shall beg leave to direct your attention to what took place in embarking on board the polacre. I beg at once to come to that part—out of compliment, indeed, to my learned friends; for they tell us that that is the only rag of a case we have left. On board the polacre her royal highness embarks at Augusta. She lay in a room contiguous to the room in which Bergami slept. It is admitted, that by opening one door, they could see one another in bed; but I will go to the return voyage from Jaffa. Upon that voyage, a tent is raised upon the deck. My lords, there was some dispute about the size, and the character of that tent. Mr. Hownam swears it was about ten feet by sixteen; and if your lordships look at it when drawn by Paturzo,* you will find that the plan corresponds with the account given by lieut. Hownam—an account differing widely from that given by lieut. Flinn. But I prefer the evidence of lieut. Hownam, because it appears more probable, and agrees with that of Paturzo. Under this tent there were a bed and a sofa. Upon this sofa did her royal highness sleep, and upon the bed Bergami, during the whole voyage, according to the evidence of Gargiulo, Majoochi, and of Demont. Paturzo and Birollo did not swear to the circumstance of Bergami sleeping under the tent during the whole of that time, but they swear to facts, from which your lordships will draw the inference that he did so; because they say, that when the tent was put down, they both went in together, that they remained together with a light for about ten minutes, that the light was handed out by Bergami, and that all was quiet during the remainder of the night. Now, I think, my lords, it is not too much to infer from
* See the Plan drawn by Paturzo in Vol. 2, p. 904.

1367
the testimony of these witnesses that Bergami slept there during the whole of the voyage.
Now, my lords, the conduct on the other side is remarkable. There was a great attempt made to show that there was a communication below, and that Bergami might have gone to the cabin below; that is laboured very much by my learned friends—but all they can make of the witnesses is, that Gargiulo and Paturzo are paid too high for their testimony. All this is founded upon a fallacy. My learned friends turn this into an annual payment. It might then be too much; for the probability was, that they might be absent from their own house only two or three months; that their affairs would have become deranged that the harvest time would have past, which was the season of their gain. And they stated the circumstances in which they stood to the minister, Mr. A'Court. The affair was investigated; and after the investigation, this has been fixed, according to the best judgment which they could form, of what would be a reasonable indemnity for their coming to this country. My lords, it is remarkable, that one of the witnesses called on the other side, is remunerated in this way. Mr. Ratti, the architect, sits down to estimate the remuneration for Giarolmi, and by that is fixed what is the sum to be paid him. But, is there any thing, from the manner in which those witnesses gave their evidence, which leads to the slightest conclusion, that they deviated from the truth?
But, my lords, it having been thus proved, that those parties slept under the tent during the whole of that voyage, there were two witnesses called who were to lay prostrate the whole of this—the clear unsuspicious testimony of two English witnesses, lieutenant Flinn and lieut. Hownam. This was the confident statement made by my learned friends on the other side. My lords, it is said, that Mr. Flinn is a brave man. I entertain not the least doubt of it, but I think this—that Mr. Flinn feels himself embarked in a cause in which a great deal of passion has been concerned. He feels himself perhaps bound by a debt of gratitude to the Queen, which he is desirous of discharging in the way in which such a debt ought not to be discharged; and I think that this, and a variety of other circumstances, have operated upon his mind. For I think it impossible that any man, looking
1368
at the testimony of Mr. Flinn, can doubt that he has stated that which is not true. That he has a disposition to exaggerate is perfectly clear, whenever you come to any thing like measure; for throughout he is contradicted in these respects by lieut. Hownam. He tells us first of all positively, on his oath, that from the bed in the cabin the bed of her royal highness could not be seen. He is cross-examined, and after having sworn positively to the circumstances, he softens it down to saying, "I think it could not be." He is further cross-examined, whether he had ever placed himself in a situation to ascertain that, and he acknowledges he had not. Am I, then, not justified in saying, that he is a rash witness in swearing to facts not within his knowledge. He also says, "I slept above on the deck during the whole voyage." My lords, there was a reason for that—the object was, to prove him in such a situation as to have heard any thing that passed in the tent. He was to negative the hearing? of two voices in the tent. That is the explanation I give of his swearing to that fact. My lords, adverting to the testimony of lieut. Hownam in this respect, you will find it contradicts the evidence of Flinn. Mr. Hownam was asked, and must have known where Flinn slept, for his cabin was contiguous to that of Mr. Hownam. He says, he did not sleep, constantly on deck; it was by no means constant; it was occasionally only; "he slept in the cabin, and I remember some nights his having hung his cot upon, deck." Now, my lords, as to the motive of lieut. Flinn. What was operating on the mind of lieut. Hownam at this moment? It is in that part of his evidence where he was giving his explanation of the necessity of there being some person to protect her royal highness upon deck it was put, that lieut. Flinn was there. In order to make out his case, it was necessary to show, that Flinn was not constantly there; so that Flinn, having one purpose to answer, says, he slept there always, and lieut. Hownam, having another purpose to answer, swears, that he was not always there, nor by any means often. I shall not attempt to reconcile their evidence, but leave it upon this—that the evidence of one or the other is certainly untrue.
My lords; I will go to another circumstance in their evidence. Lieut. Flinn pretended not to know where Bergami slept any one night. Now is that reason-

1369
able? He says, "I had no curiosity, I had other business to perform." Is that probable? Then he is asked, "Have you any doubt that Pergami slept under the tent every night?" He says, "I cannot say." That is his first answer. He is pressed further, and further; and at last he states distinctly and in positive terms, "I believe he did not sleep there." Now, how can your lordships reconcile this? If belief was well-founded—how is it possible that, when asked this in the first instance, he should say, "I cannot say"? He would have said instantly, in answer to that, "I have a doubt, I know he did not; I believe he did not; I looked into the tent, and he was not there." My lords, I leave this part of the case. But your lordships will recollect, that it was necessary that some explanation should be given how, when he lifted up the tent in the darkness of the night, he should have discovered that Bergami was not there. "Oh! then there is a light in the binnacle." It is glass, he says. It is then put to him, how could that be, you were afraid of pirates; why did not you cover it? Oh, he says, it was occasionally covered, but it could not be always, because an opening was necessary for the purpose of letting in air for the light. Then it was either glass or an opening without glass—then it is not explained, how it could be necessary there should be an opening in front of the binnacle—then he is asked, whether the holes in the cover might not have been made larger—he says, they might have been, but the sea would have broken in, and put out the light. These things, my lords, show, that he had entangled himself in a labyrinth, from which he felt it difficult to extricate himself.
Now let us come to another fact, collateral I admit. But what was the observation of my learned friend? You cannot expect to contradict a witness in the main part of his story; he comes to tell a plain and simple story, well arranged. You roust, therefore, endeavour to get him into bye-paths; and if you find him there contradicting himself-—stating that which lie is compelled to admit to be false—you then know how to appreciate the credit of such a witness, and you apply those observations to the subsequent part of his evidence. My lords, there was a paper produced, which he stated to be a copy made by himself. My learned friend says, he did not state it to be in his own
1370
hand-writing. If your lordships look to the Minutes, it could not be evidence, unless in his own hand-writing. He says, in express terms, "I made the copy." When a man says that, what are we to infer, but that the copy was in his own hand-writing? Then he is asked, from what he made that copy—he made it from a memorandum. First he tells us, that the memorandum was made by himself, then that the memorandum was made by somebody else—first that it was made in English, then that it was made in Italian, afterwards that it was made half in English and half in Italian. Now, my lords, when we pointed his attention to the extract, and showed him that every entry from the beginning to the end was Italian, we asked him how he could reconcile that to the fact he had before sworn to, that part was in English and part in Italian?—and then suddenly he was taken ill; and we have been told, not here, but in another place, that after a long cross-examination (it having lasted about a quarter of an hour) in a court intensely hot, this gentleman being used only to fresh breezes, fainted aw8y. But, my lords, he comes again to the bar, and he says he does not recollect that he swore it was his own hand-writing. "Then whose is it?" "It is the hand-writing of Pasquali, made three months ago." My lords, it happened, that by mere accident, we were in the possession of the hand-writing of Schiavini—we asked him, that question—he was astounded by the question, conceiving we knew the fact, and he admitted it was Schiavini's hand-writing. And we are to be told, after this, that he is "a brave man," a "man of veracity" above all reproach. Out of this cause I know nothing of him. I do not doubt that he is a brave man, and a gallant officer. Except as it relates to this cause, I may admit he is a man of extreme veracity; but he has been unfortunately misled upon this occasion—he has suffered himself to be perverted—he has been influenced by the factious spirit which is abroad, and which influences the proceedings before your lordships. This had influenced his mind, and had led him in this instance from the path of truth. We, therefore, my lords, must reject his evidence. I should not have thought it necessary to make a single observation upon the testimony of lieut. Flinn, if, after all those exposures, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, ad not defended his character, and ar-

1371
gued upon his evidence. My lords, lieut. Flinn's evidence must be thrown entirely out of the cause.
Then, ray lords, we come to the evidence of lieut. Hownam. He stated, that he believed Bergami slept under the tent with her royal highness: "I have heard it, and I believe it." My learned friend, Mr. Brougham, was not satisfied with the answer. He thought he might hang the belief upon the circumstance of his having heard it, and thus reject the evidence altogether. But lieut. Howman says, "It is not merely because I have heard it—I do believe it;" and this admission is wrung from him by my learned friend. No sooner is this point established, than Mr. Brougham says: "My lords, it is our case,"—I have contested the facts to the last moment, I have fought it inch by inch—as soon as I find it proved beyond dispute: "Oh! I admit the fact, it was originally part of our case!" And yet, ray lords, it is remarkable, that between my two learned friends, Mr. Denman, and Mr. Brougham, there appears to be no union of sentiment—between Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Brougham, there appears to be no union of sentiment. On all other points throughout they agree; but on this point there is no union of opinion, because Mr. Denman throughout has contended, that it is not proved that Bergami slept under the tent. Dr. Lushington laboured it to a great extent, with great ingenuity, but, as I contend, wholly without effect. How are my learned friends to reconcile this, driving as they do, different ways, that my learned friends who are juniors in the case, should give up that which is an essential part of the case as opened by my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, for he stated that he opened it. Did I hear my learned friend right? "Why, my lords, he never mentioned the polacre; minute as he was throughout, picking up every straw to comment upon, with a talent and power of mind altogether unexampled, by some fatality inexplicable—such is the constitution of the human mind—he entirely forgot the polacre: Oh accidental omission! extraordinary event! marvellous occurrence! Never before did my learned friend make such an omission; never before did he meet with such an extraordinary accident! But he liked better to leave it to Mr. Williams. He was to have all the sack, my learned friend Mr. Williams the bread. My lords, my learned friend did
1372
not forget it; it was no accident; it was intentional; it was designed. Great as his powers are, almost without precedent, reaching every thing, however minute, grasping every thing, however large, he found that he could not deal with this material. It was too stubborn for his workmanship; it could not be wrought by all his ingenuity and all his taste.
My lords; in addition to the belief of lieut. Hownam, of these parties having slept under the tent, your lordships have, I will not say the positive evidence, but that which I like much better, the negative evidence of the countess Oldi. Is that an accidental omission? Is the countess Oldi left out by accident? In this, too, does my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, agree with his other friends? I think it impossible that four intelligent men could have agreed upon such an omission. My lords, when I heard that the countess Oldi was not called, I said, there is a death-blow to the cause. I would have put the countess Oldi into the box at all hazards; by no possibility could I be worse off than by the omission of that important witness. But, my lords, if Bergami slept in the cabin, must not the countess Oldi know it? And if the countess Oldi did know it, why should she not appear to testify to that fact? Can any reasonable man devise a cause? has she not been examined, has not Mr. Vizard been near her, has she not been, brought here for that purpose, does it admit of more than one solution, and that of this nature?—"I will serve you to any extent but that of stating what is untrue. I cannot come into court and state this;"—and therefore she is not brought. My lords, is it necessary to say more upon this? If it is, there is a host of witnesses: Hieronimus, Schiavini, Camera, Austin, Brunette, and two or three more; not one of whom have appeared for the purpose of proving this fact, which my friends contest, in the last stage of the cause, because they consider it a material fact—yet they do not dare to call the witnesses to make it out!
But, my lords, it is said, suppose they slept under the tent what is the inference you would draw from that? They were liable to interruption; Mr. Flinn occasionally lifted up the awning (as it is called), and when I mention the word "awning," let me remind your lordships, how the case stands. It may have been an awning, but Gargiulo says, it was

1373
closed all round, and that he carried pins for the purpose of securing it. Mr. Denman says, "If there is any military officer who hears me, he will be aware it is not a military tent; it was merely a simple awning." Mr. Hownam pretends to say, he believes it could be opened on the side; but Mr. Flinn states, that he uniformly lifted it up, and looked under it. But, my lords, the observation I am making is this—did lieut. Flinn, upon any one occasion, ever lift up the tent when he was not called by her royal highness? Never did he dare to interrupt them, unless he was called: Oh! but the hatches! they were liable to interruption—look at the conduct of lieut. Hownam! he ran up one night, he found the tent closed, and of course, he says, "I instantly withdrew." So that if any person had in the dark, supposing the hatches to be open by accident, done so, it was understood as a matter of course they were instantly to withdraw; and yet we are to hear of interruption, that it was absolutely impossible there could be any thing of this kind, because they were liable to interruption. But, my lords, who swears to the hatches being open? I find nothing of that kind; but I find, by the evidence of Gargiulo, that often in the morning he found the hatches closed. What would you draw as an inference from this? That the parties never, for a moment, supposed that any person would dare to intrude upon their privacy.
Now, my lords, let me direct your attention to a fact which, as connected with the other circumstances, is, if possible, of more importance than any to which I have yet directed your attention. Gargiulo swears to the circumstance of her royal highness and Bergami sitting upon a gun, and kissing each other. Paturzo swears to the circumstance of their sitting upon the gun, entwined arm in arm, and sitting also upon a bench. These facts are sworn to only by them; and my learned friend may, if he likes, contrast with their evidence the negative evidence of Flinn and Hownam. But, my lords, there is a fact of precisely the same description, which is sworn to by Gargiulo and Paturzo, which took place in the presence of Schiavini, and which he might have been called to contradict. Parturzo is asked, "Describe some of the situations?" "Sometimes sitting on a gun and the arm of one behind the back of the other, because the gun was small,
1374
supporting each other with the arm, sometimes Pergami lying on his back upon his small bed, and the princess standing near to his bed, leaning forward; but whenever this happened, the captain, now with one excuse, now with another, sent me away, because we are distant relations." Gargiulo is asked, "In what position have you seen Pergami lying on the bed?" "Pergami was lying on the bed on his back, her royal highness sitting near Pergami, the count was walking near the tent on the opposite side, and having received the order for closing the tent, count Schiavini delivered this order to me."—"Do you know by whose directions the tent has been closed on those occasions?" "Sometimes Schiavini or Camera, but always one of the suite." "Once I remember to have seen her royal highness stooping on the bed of Pergami, and to have desired Paturzo to go away, for it was not decent for him, who was a young man, to be present." "Count Schiavini remained always there." Now, my lords, how does the case stand? Count Schiavini is sworn to be a person observing this, and he is at this moment in London. Independently of the means of contradiction, there would be no reason to doubt the evidence of either of these persons; but, my lords, they are confirmed by the non-calling of Schiavini. My learned friends have, with lynx eyes, run through this evidence. Has not this singular fact attracted their notice? If it has, should they not have examined count Schiavini upon this most important transaction; and, not having called him, is it not perfectly clear that Schiavini does recollect the transaction, and that that is the reason he is not called? Then, my lords, without adverting to the extraordinary and rapid advancement of Bergami—without adverting to the fact of his family being all brought round the princess with the exception of his wife—without adverting to the contiguity of their apartments—here we have indecent familiarities proved negatively by the witnesses on their side, positively by the witnesses on this side, and those persons between whom these familiarities are proved are for six weeks after that time lying in a tent, side by side, in the manner spoken of by the witnesses! My lords, what is the doctrine laid down by the Consistorial Advocate, as he is called? If there are acts of indecent familiarity

1375
satisfactorily established, and if you 6ee the parties seeking opportunities on which a criminal intercourse may be enjoyed, "then," says the learned doctor, "the case is made out." Now, my lords, here are laboured opportunities sought for—here is an opportunity in the tent—here are those circumstances of familiarity spoken to by witnesses, against whom there is no reproach—my learned friend must, then, upon his own premises, come to the conclusion, that this is evidence to satisfy this tribunal that the crime of adultery is complete. My lords, this is the argument of my learned friends. I apply the facts to their argument. It is the conclusion they have themselves drawn. The Consistorial Advocate on the other side, who is of great authority on a point of this nature, has, by his own argument and his own position, completely established the case on the part of the supporters of the bill.
But, my lords, a singular argument is urged on the other side, which I know not how to meet—namely that the parties Were never undressed. Mr. Brougham's phrase, in the course of the examination, was this: "Will you swear that her royal highness took off a stitch of her clothes, during the whole voyage?" and therefore, my lords, notwithstanding those faculties, notwithstanding all these apparent inclinations, lying side by side this, "singular looking stout built man," according to the evidence of the earl of Llandaff, because the clothes were not taken off, says my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, no legitimate inference can be drawn! I believe my learned friend said it in an under tone—he did not wish it to be heard. Did you ever hear, my lords, before any tribunal, particularly before an august tribunal of this nature, an argument so singular and so monstrous? But, my lords, as to the fact, Paturzo says, "I saw the Queen in a kind of morning-gown, looking out of the tent in the morning." What was the dress of the other party? A loose Grecian robe; and Dr. Holland, not as evidence in the case, but as information which nobody doubts, shows, that in the East this is the ordinary way in which persons sleep. And yet, according to the argument of my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, what is to become of the population of all the East, if his argument is to prevail? In our cold climate it has been remarked of the petticoat on the one side—
1376
"Oft have we found that seven-fold fence to fail,
"Though stiff with hoops, and arm'd with ribs of whale."
On the other side, the Grecian robe—
"The leathern outside, boisterous as it was, "Gave way, and bent beneath her strict embrace."
That, my lords, was the embrace of a woman of high fortune, of high character, to a man low in situation, compared with hers—Sigismonda and Guiscardo.
My lords; I hardly know how to deal with the kind of justification set up on the other side. The evidence on this subject resolves itself into two or three points extremely striking. My learned friends think it necessary to assign some reason for this circumstance. Some adequate cause must be assigned for this deviation from propriety; and when my learned friends think it necessary to resort to arguments and explanations of this kind, it shows the impression the facts make upon their minds. And if these excuses are shown to be futile—if they are ground to powder, and dissipated in the air—theri We have, by the conduct of my learned friends, their own admission of the strength of the argument which is urged against them, "protection was necessary—it would not be proper she should sleep in the tent without him." Protection! why? Had you reason to suspect any of the crew? No. Again, would not a person who lay in his hammock, within four or five feet of the tent, have afforded protection? Yes. Why lieut. Flinn was there. No, he was not; he was only there occasionally. But lieutenant Flinn might have been there; lieut Hownam might have beeen there, Necessity of protection therefore, is a most idle excuse. "But the sea might break over;" and then, when you talk about Schiavini, he would have been of no use—he was a landsman; and so Bergami, "strong built," according to lord Llandaff, is put there, though he is equally a landsman. If it were not for the extraordinary powers of my learned friends—if it were not for the language and imagery in which they clothe every thing, however absurd and trifling, so as to mislead the judgment, it would not have any effect. But the glaring splendor is abated—our organs have got into a proper state—we see the object—and we see the futility of the arguments my learned friends: have so splendidly clothed, and so extravagantly embellished.

1377
My lords; there is an observation touched upon by the attorney-general, which struck me as carrying with it irresistible force. What must have been the situation, and what the mutual reflections of these parties? This man, formerly a Serjeant of dragoons, a courier, raised, elevated, a person so described, as he had been described lying side by side with her royal highness, what must have passed in their minds at the time? what must her royal highness have felt? Must she not have been struck with the extraordinary indecency of such conduct, to say no worse? Is she to be held up as a woman of extraordinary purity, of great character, of elevated sentiments; and are we to suppose that, under such circumstances, the indelicacy of her situation would not strike her with a force irresistible? Then, my lords, if that was so—if these images must have been present to her mind—would she have endured this for a moment? Could she have continued it? No, ray lords; if she had been so weak and so foolish as to have submitted to it for a moment, the instant it struck her imagination, an alteration must have, of course, taken place. A woman of ordinary delicacy—a woman of no delicacy—a mere worm, must have felt that situation. My lords, if that be so, what is the conclusion to which that leads? that she could submit to that only from one motive, only in consequence of one connexion, only to gratify one desire, only to feed and influence an insatiable passion. How is it possible to give any other solution to such conduct? The direct evidence is strong; the moral evidence is, if possible, still more cogent and convincing. No man that does not wilfully shut his eyes, can refuse to come to this conclusion. I defy any human being to give any other colour to it—I defy any man, who has the soul of a man, and the energies and faculties of a man, to give any other solution to it. Faction may mislead—party may sway—we may wilfully shut our eyes—things may not strike us, because we do not look—but, if any man will, with a view to decide this case, look the facts in the face, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion to which they lead—that an adulterous intercourse did take place at the time to which I am alluding.
My lords; need I allude to that to which I referred when I had the honour of addressing you before—that, if all this is innocent, if it admits of any explanation
1378
—there is an individual who might have been called to your lordships bar, for the purpose of pledging his truth and his soul with respect to this fact—a person who is thus described, a respectable, humble, obedient, dutiful servant, and nothing more—faithful to his mistress, discharging all the duties, the proper duties, which she imposes upon him, faithfully, a man without blemish upon his character, upon whom they say no imputation is cast. He comes, my lords, towards this country; he arrives at St Omer's—her royal highness quits her carriage, a carriage, no doubt blazoned with the royal arms, and this man in that very carriage. Oh profanation! returns again, not daring to accompany his royal mistress to the shores of England! His sister comes. Vassali, the agent, is sent to meet her—he himself does not dare to appear. My learned friends, who are confident and bold in their assertions beyond any thing I ever before witnessed, say, how absurd! this is the first time among the numerous extravagant doctrines which have been laid down in the progress of this cause, that the person charged with adultery was called to appear at your lordships bar for the purpose of vindicating himself and the woman from the charge. My learned friends have industry beyond any thing I can describe; they have zeal, they have energy, they have talents; but in this respect, my learned friend, the attorney-general, has satisfied your lordships, that they are mistaken—that a case has recently occurred, where that very circumstance took place. My learned friend, Mr. Denman, says, "Oh, what reliance would you place upon such evidence?" My lords, I should like to see the witness; I should like to see him cross-examined; and if he did swear to the fact, and if he swore to it in such a manner as to lead your lordships to give him credit—if upon cross-examination he betrayed no symptom of failure, my lords, I should say, such evidence might make a great impression upon your lordships minds. I do not know whether the circumstances are so strong in this case as to outweigh the positive evidence of a man in that situation. I do not know, if he were so to swear, that your lordships would give him credit; but, my lords, this I know, that there is not good faith on the other side, when they assert, that all this was innocent, and when they so describe the individual, not to put him to your bar, that he may be so interrogated.

1379
But, my lords, I am wasting your lordships time to touch upon such a point. The case is so clear, so demonstratively clear, so free from doubt upon this part of the transaction, that I cannot leave myself for a moment to doubt the impression it must make upon your lordships minds.
My lords: a word only with respect to the case at Aum. I leave the case of the polacre with entire and perfect confidence. I touch upon the case at Aum merely for this purpose. They run to the same tent at Aum, under the same circumstances as on board the ship. There was no need of protection—there was no sea—there was nothing against which it was necessary to guard. And why? because, in the outer tent, there were two servants, and because in that outer tent Bergami himself might have slept, instead of sleeping in the inner tent with her royal highness. When I mention the case at Aum, I mention it therefore merely for the purpose of fortifying, if it needed it, the case on board the vessel; because it shows the absurdity, the futility, and extravagance, of those reasons which have been assigned for so extraordinary a proceeding. My lords, I do not impute as a matter even of inference, that adultery did take place during those two days under the tent at Aum—it is possible it might not; but it is for this reason, and for this reason only, that it is a part of a general system of cohabitation; but if it stood alone, I should say, and every one must say, adultery must have been committed at the period to which I am referring. This is the use I make of the case at Aum.
My lords; I beg leave to direct your attention to what passed at the theatre San Carlos. According to the evidence on the part of the bill, it has been proved that her royal highness went to that theatre on a masquerade night, accompanied by Bergami, in a domino, and by Louisa Demont, and no other persons of her suite. They crossed the garden, went through a private door at the extremity of the garden, got into a hired carriage and went to the theatre. My lords, I lay no stress whatever upon the circumstances which took place at the theatre. My object is entirely different. If it be established as a fact, that her royal highness, accompanied by her courier and her chambermaid, went privately to a masquerade, without the knowledge of any per-
1380
son of her household, what is the fair inference that you will draw from that circumstance, even if it stood alone, unsupported by the other facts in the cause? But, my lords, when I connect it with the other circumstances of the cause, they mutually throw light upon one another. My lords, did she not go to the masquerade in the manner I have described? That is established beyond the possibility of a doubt—it is established by the conduct of my learned friends, who have the management, the zealous management, of this defence. That they were at the masquerade is proved by the evidence of Dr. Holland. The charge has been made, and has now been in print for a period of six weeks; the attention of her majesty has been of course directed to the subject. If she was at that masquerade, her majesty must know by whom she was accompanied. Then, if she does not put before your lordships proof of the fact by whom she was attended, is not that confirmation strong that she was accompanied in the manner which Demont describes. It is in her power to disprove the fact, if the fact did not really exist. And, my lords, with this observation I dismiss this part of the case. It is a case strong in the inferences to which it gives rise, irresistible in the conclusions to which it would lead your lordships.
My lords; another circumstance to which my learned friend has adverted is, the breakfasts at Genoa and at Milan. It is in vain to say, "I repose no reliance upon the testimony of Majoochi and of Demont." If they, at the time of their giving their evidence, give you the names of other persons who were present at the time, and who might be called to contradict them, the mere circumstance of their vouching such persons satisfies me of the correctness of their statements. Demont says, that Louis Bergami and Majoochi waited; Majoochi says, that Louis Bergami or Camera waited. Your lordships therefore see, that if Louis Bergami and Camera are called and they deny the fact, they both of them contradict the testimony of Demont; but when this opportunity is given to the adverse party of contradicting her testimony and they do not dare to avail themselves of it, the conduct of these parties in withholding this evidence is strongly confirmatory of the truth of the original statement.

1381
My lords; there is another fact to which I will shortly advert which might be contradicted but which has not been contradicted. I mean the transaction at Venice, with respect to the chain. The party is cross-examined at great length for the purpose of obtaining information such as may enable my learned friends to contradict his testimony in this respect—he tells you that the chain was purchased of a person of the name of Fano; be describes the residence of that person; he tells you with great distinctness, that when the chain was brought in, all the parties were about to get up from the table. Fano and all the persons present might have been called to contradict him. My learned friend has stated, that in one of the public papers there is an account with respect to the sale of this chain. My lords, if it has met the observation of any noble lord whom I am now addressing, I am sure that it can have no operation or influence upon his mind. My learned friend has not even spoken of such a circumstance—my learned friend who introduces the irregularity of Austrian gazettes to your lordships notice—who introduces the letters of baron Ompteda to your lordships—who in the course of proceeding is guilty of a thousand irregularities, does not produce any such certificate. I deny that such certificate exists; for I can look at the proof only as it is produced before your lordships. They might have produced Fano. No doubt, on a proper application, he would have appeared before your lordships. They might have called also every person at her royal highness's table at the time. At this time, my lords, Bergami was waiting behind the chair of her royal highness; she takes the chain from off her own neck, and puts it upon his; he returns it, he hands her out to the other room, and they part with a squeeze of the hand. My lords, I put this among those things which might have been contradicted, but which has not been contradicted. My lords another case of the same character proved by the witnesses on the other side, is, what took place at Bellinzona, at Lugano, and at the Devil's Bridge. At Bellinzona, Bergami, habited in the dress of a courier, is desired to sit down at the table with her royal highness; and, my lords, this is immediately after the journey to Venice. See how these corroborate each other. Did this ever happen again? Yes, at Lugano;
1382
again at the Devil's Bridge. My learned friend says the inn was small. Bellinzona, my lords, is a large and populous town. Why is he to be taken from the rest of the servants? Why not Hieronimus? Hieronimus was the Brunswick courier, connected with the family and long in the service—no such attention is paid to him; but the attention is exclusively paid to Bergami. My lords, connect all these circumstances together and see what is the conclusion to which they lead. Connect them with the circumstances on board the polacre and say whether they are not confirmatory of the case made out as to the facilities to which their arrangements opened.
But, my lords, Mr. Hownam says, that nothing he observed in the conduct of her royal highness towards Bergami, appeared in the slightest degree derogatory to her high station, dignity, and character. He is asked, "Have you never, to any person, said, that when you observed this extraordinary circumstance of Pergami being permitted to sit down with her royal highness in the dress of a courier, you remonstrated against it?" "No never." He positively denies it; but when he is pressed further, and the name of captain Briggs is mentioned, then it is, that he begins to aver—then it is that he first begins to say, "I do not recollect." When lie is asked in general terms, he says, "No, never," with the utmost confidence. My lords, it may be said that when asked in general terms, he may have said, no, because he did not recollect the circumstance; but is it possible that such a conversation ever should have passed the lips of Mr. Hownam, and he should have forgotten the circumstance, when he states to your lordships that nothing had ever occurred in any degree derogatory in his estimation to the conduct and character of the Queen? Is it possible he should have observed this without its making a strong impression upon his mind; because it was in direct variance from that which he has sworn. But what are you to think of this, when you have a distinct and positive contradiction by a witness above all reproach, who was eulogized by my learned friends, and represented as a witness for the Queen. But the moment captain Briggs spoke to this fact, the manner of my learned friend Mr. Brougham, assumed a total change. Then it was insinuated, "Have you not dined lately with the king? where

1383
did this conversation take place? Did you ever mention it to any person before?"—all those questions are put, insinuating that captain Briggs came here for the purpose of stating that which was untrue. My lords, it happens that captain Briggs did state it before, and long before this inquiry was instituted. The name of the honourable officer to whom he made the communication was mentioned—he might have been called for the purpose of contradicting captain Briggs. As to the insinuation with respect to the dinner at Portsmouth, it appears that captain Briggs commanding the, guard ship, he in common with all the naval officers of that station, paid his respects to his majesty. These are the attempts made by my learned friends on the other side. As long as the witness appears to say nothing injurious to their side, he is classed with their witnesses, and represented as a man entitled to credit. The moment he gives evidence which affects them, then insinuations are scattered, then are attempts made to detract from his credit.
The Earl of Liverpool.—As it is now four o'clock, probably it will be most convenient to your lordships to adjourn.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he was convinced his learned friend, the solicitor-general, did not intend to say any thing harsh or unpleasant to him, but he had been instructed to insinuate, that he (Mr. B.) had so far trifled with their lordships, as to have brought out those two letters which he had Rendered yesterday, after having them a long time in his possession. He was the more certain that his learned friend was merely instructed to state this fact, not only from his learned friends personal kindness towards him, but because he knew that some of his sagacious instructors had been industriously buzzing it about, that he had had those papers long in his possession. He now asserted that he had no knowledge of the existence of those letters before half-past eleven o'clock yesterday; but he was wrong in supposing that they only reached London yesterday. The person who brought them, arrived with them in London about half-past eleven the night before—an hour too late to go round with the letter, even if he had immediately received it, to their lordships several residencies. This fact might be proved by a reference to the Alien-office. He hoped this explanation would be taken as a true statement of facts, and that those who had dared to
1384
circulate a contrary one, would circulate it no farther.
The Solicitor Generalassured his learned friend, that he meant nothing personal to him, and that he gave him full credit for the statement he had just made.
Mr. Broughamwas satisfied with his learned friend's assurance; indeed, he did not mean to ascribe to those who had instructed his learned friend any motives of personal hostility towards him. They no doubt thought the artifice they imputed to him one which they would have used as a perfectly fair one.
The House adjourned.