Lords Sitting of 7 September 1820

Preamble
The House having been called over, and the order of the day read, for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties against her Majesty, the counsel were called in.
Mr. Attorney General—My lords; I think it right that I should state to your lordships, that within the last half hour I have received dispatches from Milan, and from which I find that longer delay than I had anticipated yesterday must take place before the arrival of the witnesses to whom I alluded. I think I ought, in justice to myself as well as to your lordships, to state that fact; and under those circumstances to withdraw the application which I made yesterday.
Lord Chancellor.—My lords; it cannot but give your lordships pleasure, that this application should be withdrawn. The House, however, will permit me to say, that I think the attorney-general having in a general way stated in the opening of his case, the transactions to which that application alluded, he would not have done his duty to this House, under the state of the information which he had yesterday, if he had not submitted that application to your lordships consideration.
Mr. Brougham.—Then, my lords, considering my learned friend as saying, that this is his case, unless something which I shall do in the way of deferring my further cross-examination should induce him to call other witnesses—taking that to be

1331
the position in which we now are—I beg to call back Theodore Majoochi, for the purpose of putting one or two questions; and then I shall give your lordships no further trouble in cross-examination.
Then Tcodoro Majoochi was again called in, and further cross-examined as follows by Mr. Brougham, through the interpretation of the Marchese di Spineto.
Do you know one Julius Cæsar Gavazzi? I never heard this name of Julius Cæsar Gavazzi; I do not know the name.
Do you know the name of Gavazzi? In Italy I have heard this name of Gavazzi, and one is a jeweller in the Coperto dei Fugini at Milan; I have seen him, and he is a fat man; he lived there, but I never was in his shop.
It being suggested whether the whole of the answer had been translated, the interpreters were asked, whether the witness had said that he understood the person lived there, but he did not know it.
The interpreters both answered, that they did not hear that stated by the witness.
I heard of this Gavazzi by name, and whether he was the Gavazzi or not, I cannot tell.
The question refers to a Gavazzi who lives in Grevillc-street, Hatton-garden, or who did live there last February? I remember that this Gavazzi told me that he was a relation of this Gavazzi of Milan, for when I came here to London I met with this young man, and he told me he was a relation to that of Milan.
The question refers to this Gavazzi, and not to the other, who you have stated was the only one you knew? But I have known this young man Gavazzi only during the few days I have been in London.
Did not this London Gavazzi and you dine together last winter for eight or ten days together? Not for eight or ten days, I was not here ten days.
Did you not dine with him once or twice in the same place? Yes, I remember I did; I dined with him twice, and we ate some rice.
Now that you recollect it all so accurately, even to the dinner, was not this a short time before the death of his late majesty? The king was already dead.
Was not it about the time, near the time, of his majesty's death? After the death of the king.
Do you mean that it was immediately after the death of the king? I think, as far as I can remember, that I arrived here on the day when they were telling me that the king was already buried.
Did not you show Gavazzi a letter which you said you had received from some person? What I had received was a letter that came from Milan from my wife.
The question does not refer to that letter at all, but did you not show him another letter, which you told Gavazzi at that time
1332
you had received from some persons here to carry abroad? What I remember is, to have shown him the dispatch which I had received to carry abroad, and I showed only the address, the outside.
Was not that a dispatch which you were to carry to lord Stewart? It was.
Did you not also show a number of Napoleons which you had received at the same time that you got the letter? Yes, for my journey; I counted them there.
How many Napoleons did you so count? I believe there were eighty.
Will you swear there were not 150?—I cannot swear, but what I remember is, that there were eighty, and I can swear that they were eighty Napoleons in gold.
Did you not tell Gavazzi at the time, that whoever gave you this had given you more than you asked to pay your expenses? He cannot say so, because I have asked only the money to make my journey.
Will you swear you did not tell Gavazzi that they gave you more than you had asked to pay your journey? I cannot swear any such thing, because I have asked for nothing else than the expenses of my journey, and Gavazzi cannot say to the contrary.
Will you swear that you did not tell Gavazzi, that whatever you asked, they gave you more than that? But I cannot swear to have asked for more, nor can he say that I asked for more, and as I have once sworn to this, I cannot swear to this a hundred times.
Will you swear that you did not say to Gavazzi, that you had got more than you asked? I never said so; no.
Do you know one Joseph Visetti? I do not know the name of Giuseppe Visetti.
The question refers to a person who lives near Liquorpond-street? You may say Liquorpond-street, for I cannot remember that; I came here in a sack, and I went away in a trunk, and I do not know the English language, and I cannot remember.
Though you knew nothing about Gavazzi, you recollected him perfectly well the moment you were told something about Hatton-garden? I recollected it because I knew the name of Gavazzi, not because I knew the garden; for I did not go reading what is put at the top of the streets; I do not know the English.
Do you remember an Italian that dined frequently at the same place where you and Gavazzi dined? There were many Italians who came there, sat down, and ale the rice which was prepared.
Did you not know an Italian whom you met there, who accompanied you frequently up and down London, to show you the way, and to explain things to you? That is true; because he served me as a lacquais de place.
What was his name? I never asked him the name by which he went.
Do you not know that he was a cabinetmaker? It was said that he was a carpenter or joiner.

1333
Do you remember going with him, either on the day or the day after the late king's funeral, to the west end of the town? Where did I go?
To the west end of the town? He carried me about, and brought me here and there, and told me this place is this, and that place is that; and I did not know whether that was this or was that, and how can I remember?
Did you not go with him, in the way you describe, somewhere or other on the day of the king's funeral, or the day after it? To look at the funeral do you mean?
No, not to look at the funeral? I have been with him in several places; he was telling me that on the day they went to see the king, but I never went.
A Peer here interfered, and observed, that the witness had not used the word "funeral."
Mr. Broughamcomplained of this interference. He was not to be interrupted in this way. Their lordships must be aware that he was obliged to pay the greatest attention to the course of the cross-examination, and yet a noble lord thought fit to object to a term he had used, and thus prevent him from proceeding. He desired to know whether their lordships allowed him to put the question.
Lord Exmouthmoved, that the counsel do withdraw; which being ordered, his lordship said he was not the noble peer who had said, that the witness had not used the word "funeral," though the learned counsel directed his looks to him. He would maintain, however, that he or any other peer had a right to interpose to correct a question which I might appear improper, without any counsel checking them or staring them in the face. He came there to sit as judge, and to vote on his honour and his oath, and was not to be lectured by any counsel whatever.
The Marquis of Lansdownthought, that the proper course of proceeding, when any noble peer wished to interpose, was, first to move that the counsel withdraw. This, he thought, should have been done, if it was wished to ascertain whether the witness meant that people were going to see the king, or the king's funeral.
Lord Redesdaleobserved, that in his opinion, noble peers had been several times insulted by the remarks of counsel in the course of the present proceedings.
The Counsel were again called in.
Do you mean to say, that it was on that day that the young man told you people were going to see the king's funeral? He told me that the people all went twenty or twenty-one miles to see the funeral of the king; but whether it was true or not true, I do not know.
Did you go with that young man to any particular house to call there? I remember to have called in some street upon some gentleman whom I do not know; I carried a
1334
letter, and a servant told me, that he was not at home, because he had gone out to see the ceremony of the funeral of the king.
Was that a large house? I do not know whether it was large or small; I was not there to look at it; I went to the door, I was answered that he was not at home, when I went away.
Did you go that day with the young man, the lacquais de place, to any other house? Yes, because I had another letter, and even there I did not find the account (il conto); and that day we could not find the house, for we went here, and we went there, and could not find the address.
Do you mean to say you called at a house with a letter to carry to somebody, and could not find that person at home? Not on that day, but on another day; for on that day we went here and there, and could not find the account (il conto).
On that day, or on the other day, did you go to find any person in a very large house? But how am I to know whether it was large or small, I do not make observations of these things; I went to the door, and I did not make observation whether the house was large or small.
Did you, on cither of those occasions, go into a house where there was a centinel standing at the gate? Was that on the same day when I went with that letter, for you must give me a more clear explanation, for I went into three or four houses.
Did you, on any of those occasions, when you were accompanied by the lacquais de place, go into any large house where there was a soldier standing centinel at the door? That was on the first day of my arrival in England, when I was told that that was the house where was the court of the king, for I had three or four letters.
Did you ever go to that house again? Yes, I went to and from this house.
Do yen mean that you went several times to and from this house? I do.
Upon those occasions did you go into the house, and leave your lacquais do place at the gate? The first time I left him out at the door.
Did you not leave him at the door also the other times when he accompanied you to the house? What I remember is, at the house where there are the soldiers, to have left my lacquais de place out at the door.
Do you mean to say, that the other times you were there your lacquais de place went into the house with you? Whether he came in or not I cannot tell, I left him there, and F. told him to stop; whether he afterwards came in I cannot tell.
Did you find him there waiting for you, when you came out of the house, upon those occasions? I have not measured the place, what I remember is, that I found him there waiting for me when I went out.
Upon one of those occasions did you come

1335
out with a gentleman, whom you found in the great house? Yes, I did.
Did you go from thence with that gentleman to his chambers? No.
Did you not go with him somewhere? With this gentleman I went no where.
Who was this gentleman that you came out with? What I remember is, that it was Mr. Powell.
Will you swear, that you did not go with your lacquais de place and Mr. Powell immediately from what you call the Corte to Mr. Powell's chambers in Lincoln's-inn? With Mr. Powell I did not go.
Did you not at that time make an appointment to go the same evening at six o'clock to Mr. Powell's chambers? I did.
Did you not go that evening, according to the appointment? I did.
You are understood to say, that you went several times backwards and forwards to that house with your lacquais de place? Yes.
Did you not upon one of these occasions go from Mr. Powell's with a note to that same great house? I did.
Did you go in upon that occasion 100, and leave your lacquais de place outside the gate? I believe to have left him outside the door, but I cannot say for a certainty.
Was not this great house Carlton-house? The name of the house I never heard, it was said it was the house of the king.
Were there pillars before the door? I know that the people entered by a small door, and as soon as they got in there was a porter.
Did you see no pillars upon the house? I saw some ancient Grecian columns, but I paid no attention to them; I saw the columns.
A tier you entered the outer gate was there a court in the inside between the house and the street? There was a court between the house and the columns.
Had you any conversation with Mr. Powell about your expenses in the presence of your lacquais de place? I do not remember.
Did Mr. Powell say to you, in the presence of the lacquais dc place, that money was no object, and that you might have more if you wanted it? No.
Will you swear that? I swear that Mr. Powell never said that.
Will you swear that he never, in the presence of that lacquais de place, said any thing to that purport? Mr. Powell never held this sort of discourse.
Perhaps Mr. Powell never spoke to you at all about this business of the Queen?
The Attorney General objected to evidence of the declarations of Mr. Powell.
Mr. Broughamappealed to their lordships. Was it meant to be said that he could not, upon cross-examination, ask this question? Was it meant to be contended that it was an irregular question? Non constat, that Mr. Powell had said this or any thing else. Her
1336
majesty's counsel knew not Mr. Powell; they had not upon the record any description of Mr. Powell; but any thing he might have said was as much and as fair matter of evidence in this case as any thing else.
Mr. Brougham was informed, that he was entitled to ask this witness, whether Mr. Powell did or did not say such and such a thing to him, with a view by-and-by, if he desired, to call Mr. Powell to contradict him.
Mr. Brougham.—Do you mean to represent that you never had any conversation with Mr. Powell on the subject of the Queen? On what do you mean; I do not understand what you say.
Do you mean to say that Mr. Powell has never spoken to you upon the subject of the Queen? Mr. Powell spoke to me on this business at Milan, when I made my first deposition; but after that we have never spoken any more upon this subject.
Did you ever see this letter before [a letter being shown to the witness]? I never saw it; I do not know how to read.
Do you know a Mr. Long; a person of the name of Long? I am not acquainted with such a name as Long.
Were you ever at the Globe-tavern, the place where you used to meet Gavazzi and the others at dinner? Yes, I met them, but I do not know the name of the tavern, for I did not look; and I do not know how to read and write.
Do you know the master of that tavern? If I were to see him, I should know him.
After your first examination in this place, have you ever seen either Mr. Powell or his clerk? Yes, I have.
Have you seen them, or one of them, frequently? Yes, I have seen him sometimes, for he comes into the place where we are, and I have seen him sometimes, but I cannot recollect precisely the number of times.
How long were you ever with him or them at any one of those times? I have seen him coming to others, and I merely paid him my I respects; and I saw him the other day when he came to ask for my certificate.
Turn and look at this person; is that the master of the house? [A person stated to be of the name of Joseph James Long, being pointed out to the witness.] Yes, I know him.
Did you employ that person, not being able to write yourself, to write a letter for you to a Mrs. Blackwell? He has written twice for me, once to Mr. Hyatt, and the second time to Mrs. Blackwell.
Should you know either of those letters again if it were to be shown to you? I have not seen the letters, because I told him, "Do me the favour to write for me," and he wrote those letters, and then he told me, "Here are the letters which I have written," but I never took them, and I cannot recognize them.
Mr. Broughamstated, that he proposed to

1337
ask the witness, he not having written the letter, but employed another, whether he did not state certain things which he begged Mr. Long to write.
The Counsel were informed, that they could not give any evidence of the contents of a letter, hut that they might ask the witness whether he did or did not desire A. B. to write a letter to such and such effect.
Did you not request Mr. Long to write a letter to Mrs. Blackwell? Yes, I have begged him to write a letter in my name.
Did you tell him to write it in this manner: "I have safely delivered the letter to your brother, and he was quite well, and desires to be remembered to you kindly? "I told him to write to the following effect:" I have not found your brother at home, but I have left the letter in the hands of his wife; that they are well, and I beg to make my compliments to the family," because I was going away.
Did you not add in your instructions to Mr. Long, "I have got a situation, and am going off this evening to Vienna?" Yes, that I had got a place, and was setting out for Vienna.
Did you not desire in that letter to give your kind regards to Mrs. Hughes, brother, Madame Catalani, M. Bodeno, andaMr. Daniel? Whose brother?
Meaning Mrs. Hughes's son, whom you were accustomed to call brother? As an act of friendship.
Do you mean that you used to call Mr. Hughes, brother, as an act of kindness and friendship? Yes.
Did you desire Mr. Long also to write, "After I left you all, I could not eat, nor drink, nor sleep; so God bless you all?" As when we were together we played and joked among ourselves, so when I was writing to them, I said to Long to write, as a matter of compliment, "I cannot eat, or drink, or sleep; so God bless you."
Did you ever propose to marry Mrs. Black-well? Yes; I wanted to marry Mrs. Black-well, Mrs. Hughes, and every body in the house that would marry me.
Were you ever in Paris in the year 1818 or 1819? I was not.
Were you ever there in 1819? I never have been in Paris.
Re-examined by the Attorney General,
You have been asked respecting some Napoleons which you received before you went to Vienna; in what capacity was it that you went to Vienna? I went to Vienna as a courier.
Did you receive any directions to travel to Vienna with all expedition? Yes, I was ordered to go as quick as possible.
For what purpose were those Napoleons given you before you went to Vienna? To pay the expenses of the journey.
1338
Were you to account for those Napoleons? I was.
Did you account for those Napoleons? Yes, I gave an account of my expenses at Vienna.
You have been asked, whether you took a note from Mr. Powell to the great house of which you have been speaking, for what purpose was it you took that note? As far as I can recollect to obtain a passport.
Upon that occasion, into what part of the house did you go if you went into the house at all? I went to the outer gate, and then I went through the court, I turned to the left hand, mounted a few steps, and went to the door and rung the bell, a servant came, and I gave him the note.
How long did you stay upon that occasion? About half an hour, not longer.
Were you directed to go any where else for your passport, and did you go elsewhere? I did.
Where? The Austrian ambassador's.
Did you, upon that occasion, get your passport? When I showed the note, they gave me the passport.
Do you recollect whom you saw at the great house upon that occasion? I saw a footman, and I saw a German, who talked to me in German.
You say you were there at other times; at any other times whom did you see at that great house? A big man, rather a handsome man, who did not talk either French or Italian, and spoke to me by signs.
For what purpose did you go to that house? The first time I went to carry a packet, and then I said that I must have a receipt for that packet, for I cannot give it without a receipt; and this was the object of my first going, because I was obliged to deliver it in person.
Did you bring that packet over with you, when you came over with Mr. Hyatt? I had it in my pocket.
How many times altogether did you call at that house, according to the best of your recollection? What I remember is, that I have been there three times.
You have stated what you went there the first time for; do you recollect for what you went there the other two times? The second time I went to see whether there was any answer to the packet for which I had had a receipt; the third time, because they had told me to call again; I had got no answer.
Was it the third time, or another time that you went there upon the subject of your passport? Then I went another time for the passport.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Rosebery.—Did you go alone to Vienna, or in company with any other person? Alone, alone, alone.
Who then kept the account of the expenditure of the money? I was alone, and I was obliged to keep it myself.
Earl Grey.—How could you keep that account, when, as you have stated, you can neither read nor write? The book of the post teaches all, shows all expenses.
You are understood to state, that you can neither read nor write? I know only to write my name very ill, and hardly that.
That is all you know? I am not fit either to write letters, or to keep accounts.
The following Extract was read from the printed Minutes, page 141.
"How long were you in England at that period, when you lived with Mr. Hyatt at Gloucester? This I cannot remember, because I have not the book in which I have marked the time.
"About how long were you in Mr. Hyatt's service? This is the same answer, because I have not the book in which I put down how long I was there."
How do you explain that? Non in cui he marcato, but, di marcare.
Interpreter.—It appears to her majesty's interpreter, as well as to myself, that he means, that he has not the book in which lie used to mark.
Do you mean to say, that you have not the book in which you put this down, or that you kept no book in which you entered such things? I said I had no book of any sort to mark upon, for I do not know how to read or write.
The interpreter was asked, what he conceived to be the literal meaning of the words "quanto mi recordo," which had been frequently used? to which he answered, "according to the best of my recollection."
The interpreter was asked, whether "I came in a sack, and went away in a trunk," was not an Italian proverb? to which he answered that it was.
The Witness, and also the Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he would take that opportunity, before the summing up of the counsel, to call the attention of the noble earl opposite, and of the House, to a letter which had that morning appeared in all the public journals. The letter was dated "Milan, Aug. 21, 1820," and purported to be from M. Marrietti to his son. One of the learned counsel at the bar had commented yesterday upon the extraordinary contents of that letter, and had also mentioned the communication which he had upon it with the noble earl opposite. He (the marquis) had not, however, seen this letter until he read it in one of the morning papers. Now that it had gone before the public, and would, no doubt, be copied
1340
into the public prints all over Europe, he felt it to be his duty to bring the subject formally before their lordships, for the purpose of its receiving that explanation which he trusted would relieve his majesty's government from the imputation which the letter was otherwise calculated to reflect upon them. For this purpose he begged leave, first, to ask the noble earl opposite, if his majesty's government had had an accredited agent of the name of colonel Brown at Milan, to whom instructions upon the subject of his mission had been sent? In putting this question, and alluding to the office of colonel Brown, he begged by no means to be understood as putting it for the purpose of entering into the propriety or impropriety of the colonel's conduct, whatever it should turn out to be. If it were proper to entertain such a charge as this—a point upon which he did not mean now to enter—he was free to confess, he did not know how the charge could be proceeded upon or substantiated without there being an accredited agent abroad to superintend the transmission of evidence. But the moment the government had sent that accredited agent abroad, his language and conduct became fit matter for inquiry, so far as it was calculated to involve or compromise the character and dignity of his majesty's government. It was in that view only, and not for the purpose of reflecting upon the office of the agent, if such he was, that he now solicited an explanation from the noble earl opposite. In doing so, he was very far from imputing to the noble earl opposite, or to his colleague, the noble secretary of state for the home department, that they had ever entertained any intention of giving instructions to an accredited agent, the effect of which must necessarily be, the employment of that agent abroad, under the authority and influence of his government at home, in an improper interference to obstruct the course of justice. But their lordships would see, from the nature of M. Marrietti's letter, that it was not sufficient the disclaimer of his majesty's government should be confined to the learned counsel who first called the noble earl's attention to the letter, but that it should also be made in the most public and formal manner. It was not enough, that if, upon any occasion, an agent abroad should be found to violate his duty (and to travel out of his instructions must be deemed a violation of his duty), that

1341
those who employed him should merely say, that he had no instructions to commit their name to any purpose of threat or intimidation: they must go further than that, to perform their duty to the public. The letter to which he alluded, came from M. Marrietti, a banker at Milan, than whom a more respectable person did not exist. The paragraph in that letter to which he called their lordships' attention was as follows:—"The object of this, my letter, is only to inform you, that it has been written to colonel Brown, here, that you behaved yourself ill, relatively to the things which interest the royal court and the Princess of Wales; for which reason you are watched to such a degree, that it has been in agitation,' that a command, called the Alien bill, should be signified to you to leave the country; and especially for the express reason, that you have sought to discover from this M. Sacchini, a Milanese, what he had deposed against the above royal princess." This paragraph contained a severe charge; what could be more unjust than to threaten a person under such circumstances with the terrors of the Alien bill? Such an interference, if made, was most unjustifiable; and the more particularly when the conduct of the individual against whom it was levelled, was within the strict limits of propriety and justice. Now, if this letter should ultimately prove to have been written by colonel Brown, and that he was an accredited agent of his ma-jesty's'government—and if it should, as he bad no doubt was the fact, prove to have been written without the sanction of the government at home—then the king's ministers were not only bound to disavow the intention imputed to them, but to demand from their agent an explanation of his conduct. If agents abroad could be suffered to act in this manner without reproof, then the language used by them would necessarily be considered as involving the character of the government at home; and of course, from its natural influence, would create an indisposition abroad, on the part of foreigners, which would prevent their coming here at any time to perform that duty which justice might require, and which otherwise they would be very willing to tender. On these grounds, he felt it to be his duty to put the following questions to the noble earl opposite, on the subject of this letter:—First, was colonel Brown an accredited agent of the king's government abroad?
1342
and, secondly, if he were such, whether his majesty's ministers, when they were apprized of this letter, had taken any steps to ascertain from colonel Brown, whether he had acted in the manner imputed to him?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had not the smallest hesitation in giving the noble marquis the explanation he desired, as far as it was in his power at the present moment to give it; and, so far from being surprised at the question, he felt thoroughly obliged to the noble marquis for putting it, and thereby enabling him to give the explanation which he was now about to offer. He begged in the first place to assure the noble lord, in the fullest and most positive manner, that he was wholly and utterly ignorant of there being such a person in this country as the younger Marrietti. He certainly did know that there was a respectable banker of that name in Milan; but he was utterly ignorant of there being any relative of his here, and his noble friend (lord Sidmouth) was just as ignorant as he was of that circumstance; so that it was clearly impossible for either of them to have had the most remote notion of applying the provisions of the Alien hill against a person, of whose residence here they were utterly ignorant. He could also assure the House, that they were as ignorant of even the sound of the name of the other person alluded to in the letter as any noble lord who now for the first time heard it. After clearing away by this explanation, which showed the utter impossibility of either his own or his noble colleague's intention to apply the Alien bill to M. Marrietti, of whose existence they were wholly ignorant, he would proceed to answer the more immediate question of the noble marquis. Before he did this, however, he begged to state, that at the moment when Mr. Brougham had apprised him of this letter, he authorised him to take the first and earliest opportunity of apprising the younger Marrietti, that he might live here with perfect impunity, as long as he liked, from the operation of the Alien act; that he might at once remove from his mind any impression of apprehension from the operation of that law. With respect to what happened at Milan, it was quite clear he was in no condition at the present moment to give a full explanation; for he could have no knowledge of what the occurrence had been which gave rise to this letter. As to colonel Brown, he had no

1343
difficulty whatever in stating that he was a qualified accredited agent of the government respecting this case. The noble marquis had the candour to say, that if such a case as this was to be proceeded upon, it could not be substantiated without the appointment of some agent abroad. He was not himself acquainted with colonel Brown, but he had the assurance of those on whom he could implicitly rely, that a more respectable man than colonel Brown could not be found to be intrusted with such a business. On looking at the letter, he confessed that, with every disposition to place credence in what was said by so respectable a person as M. Marrietti at Milan, he very much doubted whether it referred as clearly and directly to colonel Brown as the noble marquis seemed to suppose. He was very ready to admit that it was liable to such a construction; but he still did not think the communication was conveyed in terms so decisive as to implicate colonel Brown; but this was mere conjecture on his part, and he agreed that the letter had some ambiguity about it. With respect to what had fallen from the noble marquis on the subject of making inquiry from colonel Brown, he had to inform their lordships, that, on the very day the learned counsel had communicated to him M. Marrietti's letter, he had not only disavowed it, but ordered a letter to be immediately sent to colonel Brown, desiring a full explanation upon the subject. It was obvious that he could do nothing more than what he had already done, as the matter stood; and it was equally clear that, whatever should prove to be the result, his majesty's government could not, in the most remote degree, be implicated by it. He could assure their lordships, that, in every letter of instructions which had been transmitted to the government agents abroad upon this business, it was desired that every facility should be given the witnesses for the Queen in the same manner as to those of the opposite side. He still felt persuaded that colonel Brown, in answer to the requisition made to him, would have it in his power to make a full and proper explanation. The government had at present demanded that explanation, and they could do no more.
The Marquis of Lansdownexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation given.
Lord Hollandsaid, he could not help hoping that in the course of the investigation the conduct of colonel Brown would
1344
appear justifiable. At all events, whatever might have been the conduct of the colonel and of those of whom he was the agent, the House and the country must look to the statute with a feeling of the strongest indignation. It was not to the possible lenity with which power might be exercised that he looked, but to the statute which lay before their lordships, the existence of which was calculated to operate upon men's minds, and deter them from acting the part towards the development of truth to which their conscience directed them. If colonel Brown had said what had been imputed to him to Marrietti, he had used an influence which no authority could justify; but, if the menace was merely in the apprehension of Marrietti, it was the law still that operated. However that statute might be acted upon by men, the law itself made an impression that would tend to the perversion of justice. If colonel Brown had so far forgotten his duty as to make use of the threat alluded to in that letter, then he must pronounce him, acting as a public officer, to be a great state delinquent. If the colonel was free from the imputation, then it was the impression of the terrors of the Alien bill that made Marrietti write as he had done; it was the fearful solicitude for the safety of his child that induced him to warn his son of what might be the consequence of offending persons in power in this country. So that, in either case, their lordships had a practical opportunity of seeing the effects of this most unwarrantable statute. He should not now detain their lordships by a repetition of his arguments against the impolicy of the Alien bill; but he must beg the House to recollect, that when he had opposed that bill, the character of the ministers who were to exercise its provisions was quoted as an argument—certainly not a very parliamentary or very wise argument in a free country—but it was quoted as an argument, to show the visionary nature of the dangerous effect which he had apprehended from the enactment of this statute. But did not the result support and justify his opinion, that the operation of this most impolitic law did not depend upon the character of those who were to administer it, but that it was in itself a law which, from its very nature, might operate to the perversion of justice? And here was an instance in which it was calculated to have such an effect.
The Counsel were again called in.
The Attorney General.—Am I to understand that the Queen's attorney-general does not contemplate any further cross-examination at any time?
Mr. Brougham.—At no time.

SUMMING UP.
Mr. Solicitor General—
My Lords; my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, the counsel for the Queen, having closed his third long and elaborate cross-examination of Theodore Majoochi, and the whole of the evidence which it is our intention to adduce in support of the allegations contained in this bill, being now before your lordships, it is my duty to address you in support of the allegations contained in the preamble of this measure; and I trust, my lords, that I shall be allowed, for a few moments at least, in justification of the conduct of myself and those learned friends of mine who are associated with me upon this occasion, to say a very few words as to the course which we have pursued, and the principles by which we have been actuated in conducting this most anxious inquiry. My lords, the moment my learned friend, the attorney general, received instructions from your lordships to lay before your lordships the evidence in support of the charges contained in this bill, he, in conjunction with myself and the friends who are around me, directed our most anxious attention to collect all the evidence that was to be adduced in support of those charges. We weighed—we considered—all the materials and every part of the evidence which we thought bore at all upon this question; every part of the evidence which we thought material to this inquiry; and without regard to the influence or the impression which it might create, we thought it our duty fully, fairly, and candidly to present it to your lordships. I trust, my lords, that in pursuing this course we have faithfully discharged the duty that your lordships imposed upon us. We felt we were not to make ourselves parties in this inquiry: we were acting under your lordships' direction; and we have pursued that course which I have stated, honestly, faithfully, and fairly, to the best of our judgment and our ability.
My lords; the task that is now imposed upon me is, to point out to your lordships attention, the leading facts contained in
1346
the evidence that has been delivered at your lordships bar. The difficulty which I have to combat with upon the present occasion is, that I know not what I am to oppose. I know none of the arguments that are to be offered by way of defence on the other side. I know none of the facts—if facts there be—upon which the defence of her majesty the Queen is to be rested. All, therefore, that I can do-all that my present duty imposes upon me—is, to show, in the present stage of the cause, and with the evidence which has now been laid before your lordships, how the allegations and charges contained in the preamble of this bill are made out and established.
My lords; I trust that in referring to the evidence (which I shall not trouble your lordships by reading), but in referring to the evidence which we have had the painful task for so many days of unfolding before your lordships, I shall not be guilty of any misstatement or any exaggeration whatever. My duty does not impose it upon me to endeavour to enflame your lordships minds upon this occasion: all that is required of me is, to state with precision, and with as much accuracy as I am able, what is the substance of that evidence, and how it attaches upon those charges that are contained in the preamble of this bill. My lords, still more do I hope, that I shall not enter into any expressions (at least it will not be my intention to do so) derogatory to her majesty the Queen. It is my duty only to unfold the evidence, and I trust I shall be betrayed into no expressions of such a character and import. Her majesty is here upon her trial. One side of the case only has been heard: and I am bound, your lordships are bound, to presume she is innocent of those foul charges that are imputed against her, until, after the whole case has been heard on both sides, her guilt shall, if it ever should be, finally established.
My lords; we have been charged by my learned friends on the other side, with scattering calumnies and throwing dirt upon her majesty the Queen. We are free from that imputation. We have stated nothing that we had not reason to believe would be clearly and satisfactorily proved. The calumnies—if calumnies there be—are not ours. The facts have been stated at your lordships bar by witnesses sworn to tell the truth. It is upon that evidence, so delivered, that this charge rests, and

1347
upon no statements of the counsel who are employed in support of this bill. But, my lords, when we are charged—when we are accused—of scattering calumnies, a charge which, I repel, in the manner I have stated, let us look at the conduct of our adversaries. From the beginning to the end of this inquiry, we have been charged as persons concerned in a foul conspiracy—we have been charged with subornation of perjury—almost every individual who has appeared at your lordships' bar has been calumniated, I will say, as infamous, as perjured, as utterly unworthy of credit. Who is it then, my lords, that scatters dirt and throws calumnies about? Certainly not the counsel in support of this bill. If that imputation is to fix any where, it certainly fixes in a very different quarter.
My lords; we have also been told, and it was stated with great emphasis yesterday, that my learned friend's opening (a task so painful to his feelings to discharge) had not been established in proof—not only that that opening had not been established in proof, but that substantially it had not been established by the evidence adduced before your lordships. My lords, I beg leave, without at this moment entering into any detail upon the subject, to request your lordships to cast your recollection over the great mass of evidence that has been laid before you, and, answering according to the honest impression of your lordships' minds and feelings at this moment, answer me whether you do not think, not merely in the substance, but almost in all the details of this case, the statement of my honourable and learned friend has been made out and supported.
My lords; before I proceed further, let me for a moment recall your lordships' recollection to what the nature of this charge is: in other words, without reading the very words of the preamble of the bill, let me state to your lordships what is its substance and effect. It begins by stating, that her majesty engaged in her service at Milan, a man named Bartolomeo Bergami in the situation of a menial servant— that in a short time afterwards an intimacy of a disgraceful nature took place between them: that he was loaded with favours, with honours, with distinctions, by her majesty: that the members of his family were brought about her person, in various situations, more or less confidential; and that ultimately an intercourse of a dis-
1348
graceful and adulterous character took place between them. My lords, that is the charge contained in the preamble of this bill—that is the charge to which the evidence is directed—and it will be for your lordships to say, when I come (which it is my duty to do) to recapitulate the heads of this evidence, whether that charge is not substantially made out and supported.
My lords; I must call your lordships' recollection back to what immediately took place upon her majesty's arrival at Milan. I conceive that all that I have to' do is to be perspicuous in the observations which I have to make; and nothing will tend more to that perspicuity, and to the rightly understanding of the case, than, in a degree at least as far as the circumstances will admit, to pursue her majesty in the order of time, from her first leaving Milan up to the period when this evidence terminates at the Villa Caprili.—.My lords, it is established in evidence, that at Milan, her royal highness took into her service the individual whose name has been so frequently mentioned—that he had been, for two or three years before, in the service of general Pino in a menial situation, earning at the rate of three livres a day—that he came into her majesty's service as a courier—that he waited behind her chair at Milan during a period of a fortnight, while her majesty remained in that city. Her majesty then left Milan and pursued her route to Naples. My lords, it has been stated and proved to you, that a young lad of the name of William Austin, then about twelve or thirteen years of age, had been in the habit of sleeping in her majesty's apartment. The night before her majesty's arrival at Naples, the party slept at a country house in the neighbourhood of that city; and then it was, for the first time, that her majesty said, that she thought this lad too old to sleep any longer in her chamber, and requested a J separate apartment for him. On the following day, she arrived at Naples, and j the day after her arrival, in the evening, as the witness Demont stated, her royal highness went to the opera. My lords, it is most material to attend, throughout this inquiry, to the relative situations of the apartment occupied by the Queen and that occupied by her courier. At Naples, the communication between them was of this description: there was a private passage terminating in a cabinet, from which

1349
cabinet you entered into the apartment of Bergami, and the other end of the passage led directly to the bed-room of her royal highness: in traversing the passage and the cabinet there could be no interruption, because they led to no other place, they were a private passage and cabinet, and traversing the cabinet and the passage, you passed without interruption from the bed-room of her royal highness to that of her courier. My lords, the witness states, that her majesty, according to her observation, returned that evening early from the opera. She appeared to be greatly agitated; she went into the cabinet contiguous to the room of Bergami—she waited a short time, and then came back: she kept the servant but a short time, and declaring Austin must not disturb her, she dismissed the servant for the night, in a manner wholly unusual.—On the following morning, my lords, no doubt the suspicion of this witness and her curiosity were excited. The observation she made was this, that the small travelling bed of her royal highness had not been slept in that night; but she observed on the larger bed in the room, ah impression, as if two persons had slept there. My lords, upon our examination in chief, your lordships are well aware, how we are fettered in getting out facts. Even the cross-examination did not elicit this fact which I am about to state; but a question put pointedly by one of your lordships, which could not be evaded, elicited this important fact, that, in addition to that fact, there were stains on the bed, of a character to indicate what had passed between the two persons who had slept in that apartment. My lords, I am told, and I have heard it said in high quarters, that no absolute adultery is proved in this case. If these facts be true, there is no man who hears me, fairly exercising Ids understanding, can entertain a doubt as to the fact of adultery; that adultery was committed on that night; and that this was the commencement of an adulterous intercourse between these parties.
My lords; allow me here to observe, that in all cases of adultery, the absolute fact of adultery can seldom be proved: it is not committed with open doors, of necessity; it is committed in secret and in private; and in all my experience among the numberless causes of this description that I have heard, I do not remember a single instance in which the direct fact of adultery was proved. It is inferred from circumstances
1350
more or less cogent, and the facts which I have stated are as strong as I ever heard established in a court of justice, for the purpose of justifying a jury in finding an act of adultery committed at that period.
My lords; it is so much of the essence of this inquiry, that this principle should be distinctly understood by your lordships, that I do not wish, plain as it is, intelligible as it is, reasonable as it is, that it should rest upon any single authority. I therefore shall read the authority of an individual, as enlightened, as much conversant in questions of this kind, as any person who ever sat upon a human tribunal. My lords, I refer to the judgment of sir William Scott in the case of Loveden versus Loveden, in the Consistory Court in 1810. I am not referring to the case for the facts of the case, but I refer to it, for the principle laid down by that learned and enlightened judge, delivered publicly at the time, and of which a learned friend near me at the moment it was delivered, took an accurate note. My lord, it is in these words: "There is no necessity to state the rule of evidence applicable to this subject, except briefly. The fundamental rule is, that it is not necessary to prove a direct fact of adultery. It could not be so proved in one case in a hundred. It must be deduced by inference leading to a just conclusion. If this were not sufficient, there would be no protection for marital rights. It is not necessary to enumerate the various grounds of inference; many are mentioned in the ancient writers. But, besides those, there are many others, depending upon general manners and other incidental circumstances. They must be such as to lead a reasonable and just man to the conclusion of guilt. It must not be a rash conclusion, or founded upon artificial reasoning. It must not be different from what would strike a plain man. This is not a matter of technical rule. Upon such subjects the rational and legal conclusion is the same. "Then he goes on and says," General cohabitation is sufficient: artifices to evade particular observation are held out to screen parties from just conclusion." My lords, I have not read this because I myself entertained any doubt upon the subject, but because, upon a question of this grave character, I thought it necessary, that the principle upon which your lordships are to be called upon to decide, should be distinctly and clearly pronounced, from what, upon subjects of this nature, I consider as the highest possible authority.

1351
My lords; I have stated to your lordships what passed on the night of the Queen's entry into Naples. Upon the following morning, after she was dressed, she retired into the small cabinet, and remained there for the period of an hour and a half. Nothing further occurred to attract observation upon that day. But, my lords, upon a subsequent night, a circumstance did occur, to which I wish particularly to direct your lordships attention; because it shows, as I apprehend, more particularly as connected with the facts I have already related, that this adulterous intercourse was going on between these parties. Mademoiselle Demont, the servant, was upon the point of quitting the apartment of her mistress, the princess; she was in the corridor for the purpose of going into her own apartment; and the door of the corridor being a little upon her left, two or three or four paces from the door of the Queen's apartment; at the moment she was standing in this position, she sees the courier Bergami at the other end of the passage in his shirt, coming in a direction towards the Queen's apartment. It was impossible she should not know what the object was, because she made the observations I have stated on a previous night, and she hastened to quit the spot, in order that she might not be a personal obstruction to the intercourse which was about to go on. What was the observation she made at the moment? She passed the door, she found it closed, and the key turned. Your lordships will understand I am now establishing one of those facts as they stand before you in evidence. I know what may pass in the minds of noble lords. I know they may say, all this rests on the evidence of one particular individual. At this moment I shall make no observations upon the credit of that witness; but, in the course of what I am about to state to your lordships, I shall take occasion to do so; and I think I shall be able to satisfy your lordships, that no just imputation has been cast upon her testimony. I think I shall be able to satisfy your lordships, looking forward to the future progress of this cause, that there are circumstances which, if they are not introduced on the other side, will give strength and validity and force unanswerable to the testimony of the witness to whom I am now alluding.
My lords; if what I have stated be correct, that an adulterous intercourse had taken place at this time, how would it ma-
1352
nifest itself in the conduct of the parties? Intimacy must take place. It is impossible that it should be screened from the observation of those immediately about their persons. Let me, then, recall to your lordships recollection the scenes that took place while these parties continued at Naples. Your lordships recollect a masked ball that was given to Joachim Murat at a house on the sea shore. Your lordships will recollect what was stated of the transactions on that occasion. The princess went to that ball, accompanied only (for the purpose of preparing for the ball) by Demont and by the courier Bergami. There were two apartments allotted for the use of the princess, an anti-room and a dressing-room. The princess was first dressed in the character of a Neapolitan peasant, and she was assisted in dressing by Demont. She went to the ball and remained there an hour. She returned for the purpose of changing her dress. And, what was it that took place on that occasion? She changed her dress, as the witness tells you, entirely. The chamber-maid was left in the anti-room, while the courier was introduced into the bed-room, and. remained there during the whole time the princess was employed in changing her dress. After she had changed her dress, she went below: she was accompanied by the courier Bergami, she taking his arm; and afterwards they returned to the room above. My lords, you must have observed the extraordinary course of cross-examination pursued by' my learned friend, Mr. Williams. He did not ask the witness a single question as to the facts I have stated; but merely asked her, whether there were not other persons who were in different costumes in the room below? whether there were not other persons of rank and consideration at that masquerade? Why, my lords, did my learned friend not understand the object of the evidence? Did he suppose it was to be imputed, that the princess had gone to a masquerade with the nobility of the court at that time? My learned friend was not so blind in his understanding. The point, and the only point, to which he ought to have interrogated, and which he avoided, because he knew it would be fatal, was, that instead of her chambermaid to dress her, she chose the courier Bergami, leaving the chamber-maid in the anti-room. My lords, I am told, that no adultery is proved—that if these fact

1353
were admitted in evidence, still they do not lead to the inference. Can any man of common sense, adverting to this single fact, entertain a doubt upon the subject? Would this have taken place, if an adulterous intercourse had not taken place between them? Would she have been locked up for an hour with her courier, to change her dress, the' waiting-maid waiting in the anti-chamber? The same observation arises also, but not with so much force, as to what took place afterwards. There was a subsequent change of dress: the princess came back and went down in the character of a Turkish lady; the courier, too, being in the character of a Turk, he changing his dress in the anti-room. In what way did they go? They went arm in arm down the stair-case: they went into the room alone, and what took place? Instantly, almost, the courier returned. What do your lordships presume from all this? Was it intended that that courier should return, or was it discovered by some persons who this individual was; and was he obliged, for shame, to retire from the spot which he had thus polluted? My lords, in what situation did this man stand at that time? In the situation and character of a menial servant, waiting behind the chair of his mistress—a common footman—and you are told, "if these facts are established, there is nothing to lead to the inference that adultery has been committed!"
My lords; I come now to another piece of evidence as to what took place at Naples. Your lordships remember, that it appeared in the course of the case, that in consequence of an accident, this courier became lame, and was confined to his bed, by a kick from a horse. The chamber-maid is asked, whether, in consequence of that, any person slept in the small cabinet? She says she cannot say, but there was a sofa there at that period. Majoochi tells you, he slept there: he tells you, while he was sleeping there on two of the nights, after midnight her royal highness came from the side of the cabinet next her own room, looked at the bed for the purpose of observing whether or not he was asleep, and instantly passed into the room of Bergami, where he afterwards heard the whispering and kissing. My learned friends cross-examine as to this fact; and they think they have obtained a great triumph. What do they collect from it? What was quite palpable without that; namely, that inasmuch as this was
1354
an interior communication, there must have been some other communication—undoubtedly, if her majesty had gone out to the public passage which led to the saloon, where young Austin, Hieronimus, and the maid-servants slept, she might have found her way to the exterior door of Bergami's apartment. It is asked, was not it an act of insanity to pass through that room in which Majoochi slept, to the room of Bergami, when she might go in another direction? Why, she ascertained Majoochi was asleep; she knew there was greater danger in going in the other direction; and if I were to be asked, which was the most prudent course for her to pursue, in aiming at this guilty object, I should say, beyond all comparison, that course was the most judicious which she adopted. But all this rests upon the testimony of Majoochi; and we are told that Majoochi is a witness not worthy of belief. He has been cross-examined once, and a second time; and then Carlton-house is introduced, and he is cross-examined a third time. I attended to the first cross-examination as it was my duty to do, and I will take upon myself to declare, since I have read the minutes with the same object, and with the same view, that in that long cross-examination, extending through seven or eight hours, applying to a great variety of complicated transactions and facts, extending over a period of three years, in no single instance was he detected in the slightest inconsistency. But, my learned friends get hold of a phrase—a phrase which, at the very time when it came from the mouth of the witness, every noble lord knew to be of equivocal import—that it might mean this, that, or the other. When asked to a particular fact, his answer, literalty translated, was, "I do not recollect to have seen it"—not strictly "I do not remember a thing that existed formerly," and which was calculated to make an impression, but "I do not recollect the circumstance." The changes are rung upon this particular phrase, with an artifice calculated to raise an impression upon low and vulgar minds, but which must have been utterly fruitless and unavailing, when addressed to the august assembly, before which I have now the honour of appearing. My lords, it was impossible, where I stood, not to observe the course pursued by my learned friends: "let us have a few more nan mi ricordos"—leading to the very answer, for the rrtirpose of imposition; and then your

1355
lordships are to be told, merely on this artifice, intrigue, and management, that this witness is not worthy of credit. But, my lords, a witness was afterwards called up of infinite importance—I mean Paturzo. He gave an evidence calculated to make a deep and lasting impression on your lordships. My learned friends felt that impression—it was necessary in some way at the moment to get rid of it, and by that which, I say, was incorrect in point of statement. Majoochi, upon the close of the evidence of Paturzo, was again placed at your lordships bar. Upon what pretence was the application made to your lordships? It was made upon the pretence of the urgency of the occasion—that the questions must be immediately put; and when he was interrogated, with what view and object was it? borne letters had been written in which he was supposed to have made such and such statements, with respect to such and such transactions; and the questions were put in order to contradict him. Why, my lords, the very statement I am now making to your lordships, shows that there was no necessity, at that moment, for recalling him to your lordships bar—it must satisfy your lordships that there was no hurry on the occasion, and that the object was, to get a few more non mi recordos to create a false impression as to the character of that witness. But, then, another fact is stated and insisted on, with respect to the credit of Ma-joochi. On the former examination he lad not stated he had been in England, and now it turns out, the second time, that he came to England with Mr. Hyatt of Gloucestershire as a courier, and remained with him a few weeks, and then went back to Vienna with dispatches from that gentleman. I beg leave to point out to your lordships, in justification of that witness, with what difficulty I was allowed to ask Majoochi, whether he had come from Vienna to London, and afterwards gone to the Hague. I never asked the witness—there was nothing to direct the attention of the witness to the subject— whether he had on a former occasion been in England. And, are you to say he is unworthy of credit, because he did not, being a foreigner, volunteer in saying, I was once before in England as a servant to Mr. Hyatt of Gloucester? These are the arguments, arising out of the conduct of my learned friends, by which it is supposed the evidence of Majoochi is laid prostrate, and that no attention is to be
1356
paid to it! But again he is produced upon the stage—for what purpose? for any fair and legitimate purpose? for an hour and a half has he been examined here to-day. I thank my learned friends for it. What was the object of my learned friends? They had heard—for it was rumoured abroad—that when he was in England upon that occasion, he was at Carlton-house; and the mere circumstance of getting him within those walls, is to be a reason why he is again to be cross-examined for an hour and a half; because it is supposed there is something mysterious in that circumstance to break down and impeach his testimony! Why, my lords, the circumstance is so clearly stated, and the manner of giving his evidence was of such a nature, that if any doubt existed on your lordships minds before, this would remove it, and show that the imputations on his evidence were utterly destitute of foundation. My lords, it is Majoochi then, who has sworn to the facts I have stated: he has sworn to facts not confirmed exactly by Demont, because she was not in a situation to confirm them; but to facts of the same character and description, existing at the same period in the intercourse between these parties.
My lords; there is another circumstance. Your lordships will recollect, it was proved, that at Naples there was a terrace adjoining this small cabinet—the courier, who is then employed in waiting at table, is seen walking arm in arm with her royal highness on that terrace. We are told with a sneer "these are little trifling facts, that you are accumulating on us, and pelting at us." My lords, I refer to them, because, in my mind, they are not trifling, but lead to a direct conclusion of guilt. If I see a princess walking on a terrace, arm in arm, with a servant who waits behind her chair, as a reasonable man, knowing a little of the world, I can come only to one conclusion.
My lords; I am reminded of a fact that is very material—the facts are so numerous, it is difficult to remember them all—I beg leave to remind your lordships of what took place at the theatre St. Carlos; and allow me to say, that, when you are talking of a witness on whom no reliance is to be placed, the variety of the circumstances, and the complexity of them, is to be taken into account in estimating the credit due to him. I ask your lordships, is it possible to suppose what is stated to have taken

1357
place at the theatre St. Carlos was an invention? What, my lords, are the circumstances of that transaction? Her royal highness was desirous of going in private to the theatre, and made her arrangements accordingly—the wife of the heir apparent to the throne of Great Britain, at that time holding the supreme power in this country, having an English suite of ladies and gentlemen attending upon her person, is desirous of going in private to the theatre St. Carlos—I do not object to the privacy—she might have selected any respectable person of her suite—she might have selected any respectable person in the city of Naples—she might nave commanded proper attendance, without infringing on the privacy. But she chooses another course—she chooses her chambermaid and her footman to accompany her in private and in disguise, to the public theatre of Naples. My lords, in what way and under what circumstances? It is a rainy night—a dark tempestuous night—a hired carriage is drawn up at a private door at the extremity of the garden—they traverse the terrace to the garden gate, where they get into that hired carriage, and go to the theatre, where, in consequence of the reception she met with, they only remain a short time, and are obliged to retreat, and they return home. Does this, my lords, admit of two constructions? Is this possible to be an invention? Can my learned friends suppose, whatever observations they can make upon the language or conduct of Demont the witness, that your lordships will believe this tale is invented? And if not, what is the conclusion to which it must lead, in the mind of every man acquainted with transactions of this nature?
My lords; I beg leave now to call your lordships to the recollection of what took place at Genoa. When her royal highness arrived there, her whole English suite had quitted her, with the single exception of her physician, Dr. Holland. Sir William Gell, the honourable Keppel Craven, captain Hesse, lady Elizabeth Forbes, and lady Charlotte Lindsay—all had quitted her, with the exception of Dr. Holland. Now, let me recall to your lordships recollection, what took place at Genoa. The arrangement of the apartments is most material. The princess's sleeping apartment was separated from that of Bergami by an intervening chamber, which was occupied by no person. It contained luggage, and
1358
was used as a dressing room by the princess: there was a door from her royal highness's room into it, and also from the room of Bergami. It is clear, therefore, there was an interior communication between the two bed-rooms. There is also another circumstance most material— that on the opposite side of the bed-room of the princess was the bed-room of Mademoiselle Demont, and there was a door from the room of her royal highness to Demont's room. The witness Demont has told us, that regularly every night, after she was dismissed from her royal highness and went to her own room, the key of her door was turned; she was locked in, so as to render it impossible for her to have access to the room of her royal highness. She tells you more—she says, that she generally heard some door on the opposite side open, whether the door from the room of the princess to the dressing-room, or the door of Bergami, does not appear. But the maid is locked into her own room by her royal highness; and afterwards something takes place, which leads to the conclusion, that some person had passed from the room of her royal highness to that of Bergami. My lords, upon the following morning, and during the whole time of their residence at Genoa, she whose duty it was during a month of that time, to make the bed of her royal highness, found it had not been slept in—it had been disarranged and the cushions tumbled; but, in fact and in substance, that bed had not been occupied. She tells you, that in consequence' of this she seldom made the bed—it was not necessary to make it—she smoothed the sheets and arranged the cushions, and that was all. My lords, here again is direct evidence, sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man, connecting this part of the transaction with the other circumstances. I have stated, that, during the whole of this time, an adulterous intercourse was carried on at Genoa between her royal highness and her courier. If these facts be true, it leads to that direct and necessary conclusion.
My lords; there is another circumstance to which I beg leave to advert, because it is a circumstance of most material importance, in consequence of an incident to which I shall refer that took place at Genoa. There was a small cabinet adjoining the saloon—the princess breakfasted in that cabinet. Did she breakfast alone? No; she breakfasted

1359
with her courier. Upon whose testimony does this fact depend? Upon the testimony of Demont and upon the testimony of Majoochi, both speaking to the same fact. But they introduce an incident of great consequence in this inquiry. When we are examining the credit due to witnesses, let us see how they dispose of facts—whether they place themselves in a situation to be contradicted if it be untrue. If they do it fearlessly, it gives an additional weight to their testimony. Who waited on these persons in the cabinet? Majoochi was one. And who was the other? Louis Bergami, the brother of Bergami—they both waited on the princess and the courier in this small cabinet. My lords, we are told all this is false— that you can place no reliance on the evidence of Demont confirmed by Majoochi. Here they can be contradicted. I challenge my learned friends on the other side to contradict these witnesses on this particular; and I shall have further challenges to repeat when I come to trouble your lordships with the subject of witnesses to be called on the other side. Here is a witness that may be called—let Louis Bergami be called to contradict the evidence they have given.
My lords; there is one very important circumstance, when we are examining the credit due to witnesses, let us see how the evidence comports with the conclusions which we should form from our own observations in life. The first thing that would be done by a person in the situation of Bergami, after he had obtained this influence, according to the natural order of things, must be this—to render it beneficial to himself—to render it beneficial also to his relations and his connections. By introducing his own friends, his own near relations, about the person of the princess, he fortifies his influence — he increases his interest—he excludes strangers—he confirms the domination he has obtained, in such a way as afterwards to render it difficult to shake it off. What is the account of the witnesses of what took' place at Genoa? For four months at Naples this had been going on; and for two months at Genoa; and, at Genoa, who are the parties introduced into the service of her royal highness? The sister and mother of Bergami—the child of Bergami—a child of between two and three years old. All this, it is to be said, is the fair connexion that ought to exist between servant and mistress! Her royal
1360
highness is attached to him, beyond calculation, beyond measure, on account of his faithful services, and his faithful services alone! She is willing he should bring his relations and connexions about her! He brings his child, who stands in need of the support of the mother; and if the connexion be fair, would not the mother of the child have accompanied the child herself? But, if the story of the witness be true, the last person in the world to be introduced into this establishment is the mother of the little Victorine; and, accordingly, when she was at the Barona, and intelligence was given that the princess was coming, she was sent away as fast as she could be. But, does not the thing speak for itself? It is not this or that insulated fact on which the case depends, but on a combination of circumstances, all corresponding with what one knows to operate on the minds and conduct of men.
The witness Demont tells you further, my lords, that at Genoa her royal highness went to look at a house in some secluded spot; and, what was its recommendation? that it was far from Genoa, and far from the English. And you will find by the evidence of Sacchi, to which I shall by-and-by have occasion to allude, that, during the whole of that journey through the Tyrol and Germany, the same anxious attention was paid to avoid the English. The first question he was ordered to ask, whenever he arrived at an inn was, "whether there were any English at the inn?" If there were, and they were persons of rank, her royal highness avoided the spot, and sought some other place of rest.
My lords; from Genoa we proceed to Milan. At Genoa, lady Charlotte Campbell joined the suite of her royal highness. She did not accompany her royal highness to Milan, but followed her the next day. She remained with her a short time and then quitted her; and from that time, no English lady of rank waited on her royal highness. But a lady of honour was procured at Milan. And I beg your lordships attention to this, as being of the same description as the other facts. Who was this lady of honour? The wife of the heir apparent of this empire could obtain no lady for that high situation—no foreigner of high rank or distinction—but the person procured is the sister of Bergami—the countess Oldi! But, my lords, how was she suited for the situation? Her royal highness spoke but

1361
little Italian'—the countess Oldi spoke no French. The Italian she spoke was the Italian of the lower orders of the people; but, passing that over, they were at first in such a situation, that little or no conversation or intercourse could take place between them, till they had obtained further information. Then you find, to crown the whole, that the sister of Bergami fills the situation of lady of honour to her royal highness, unqualified for it, from the reasons I have stated, and evidently, therefore, introduced only as a blind or cover, and a screen to the communication between the parties. I repeat the observation again; it is these insulated facts that I appeal to, in confirmation of the general story that the witnesses have told; and a man must wilfully shut his eyes to the truth, if he does not agree with me in the conclusion, that these facts are the strongest possible confirmation of the general story told by the witnesses who have been called.
My lords; there is another fact: at Milan, her royal highness was in the habit of wearing a blue dress in her bed-room. One morning on a sudden Bergami opens his own bed-room window—and how is he attired? Why, in this very dress, which at that time was a dress belonging to her royal highness. If the fact be true, it is quite clear, that he must have come out at that moment of the apartment of her royal highness, and not supposing he should be observed, had put on this dress carelessly; and throwing up the window led to his being seen. But, my lords, while at Milan her royal highness takes a tour to Venice. Mr. William Burrell joins her suite; but whether as a visitor or not does not appear, nor is it very material; and he and Dr. Holland accompany her to Venice. What took place there? Her royal
highness and Bergami lodged in the Hotel d'Angleterre for a day or two. Dr. Holland and Mr. Burrell were left at the inn, while her royal highness goes to a private house in the neighbourhood: and now I introduce a fact which, unless it is contradicted, is as decisive as can be in this case—I mean what took place after dinner in this house. According to the usual practice, after dinner a jeweller comes in, and trinkets are produced, and a gold chain is purchased by the princess. The party quit the room; and her royal highness remains behind with the courier, who had waited behind her chair at dinner. What took place between her royal
1362
highness and Bergami? She takes from her neck the gold chain she has purchased —she puts it on the neck of the courier—the courier takes it off, and puts it on her neck; and then he takes her by the hand, presses her hand, and leads her into an adjoining room. Is this fact true or false? Need I trouble your lordships by deducing the inference, if the fact be true? The courier, waiting behind the chair of the princess, to be toying in the manner I have mentioned after dinner—it leads only to one conclusion. But who is the witness? Is he one of the princess's household? No. He is a third witness totally unconnected with her, confirming these facts. Who is he? Why, for fourteen years last past, he has lived in the situation he holds. His character is open to inquiry—the fact may be contradicted if untrue; but, if no impeachment is made of the character of this witness—if the fact itself be not contradicted—it appears to me, there is an end of the defence on the other side; because it is quite impossible to reconcile this isolated circumstance, with the innocence of her royal highness, and her freedom from the imputations cast upon her in the preamble of this bill.
My lords; while at Milan, a visit is made to Bellenzona. At Bellenzona Bergami, still a courier, still having the dress of a courier, sits down at the same table with her royal highness, by the invitation of her royal highness; I make no observation on that, I merely state the fact; they visit general Pino—What takes place there? This depends on the evidence of Demont; Demont says, that she slept in the room adjoining the room of the princess; that after she was in bed, Bergami came into her room, passed through it, and went into the room of the princess. My learned friends do not cross-examine as to this fact. They do not ask a question upon the subject, but your lordships think it requires investigation; your lordships proposed questions to the witness, "How long did he remain in the room?—I cannot tell.—Did you go to sleep? I went to sleep in a quarter or half an hour. Did he come out of the room before you went to sleep?—No he did not. What became of him afterwards? I cannot tell." My lords, I state this fact —it will be idle to make observations on the facts as they occur—but I state this fact, as confirming and as being in character with, the rest of the story.

1363
But, my lords, her royal highness proceeds from Milan to the Villa Villani, where all that it is necessary to state is, that there was the same arrangement of the apartments, and according to the witness, the bed of Bergami was not slept in. I come now to the Villa d'Este. I am afraid of tiring your lordships, but I trust that an hour or two your lordships will not consider thrown away in the discharge of this part of my duty; and I will not make a single observation that does not impress my mind as proper and necessary to be made. At the Villa d'Este, first of all, let me direct your lordships attention to the situation of the apartments—precisely the same arrangements are here made. There are two anti-rooms; you pass from one anti-room through the second to the bedroom of her royal highness, from which there is a passage to the room of Bergami. In this situation are the parties continually left. The waiting-maid accompanies her to her bed-room to undress her. Her royal highness returns through the two anti-rooms—Demont is turned out—the door is shut and locked —Bergami is inside his apartment, communicating directly with the room of the princess which is thus secured.
My lords; let me remind your lordships of the change that afterwards took place. After the return from the Grecian voyage, her royal highness changes the position of her bed-room, and there is no interior communication between her bed-room and that of Pergami; it becomes necessary to make a communication, and a door is expressly opened for that purpose—there is a corridor communicating with the bed-room of the princess, the door of which cuts off all communication. During the whole time, therefore, that they were at d'Este, there were these facilities of communication not merely existing, but studiously and carefully preserved between their respective bed-rooms. —My lords; we must take, in cases of this kind, the circumstances altogether: you find how the parties conduct themselves towards each other; you find the degree of familiarity existing between them, that they conduct themselves in all respects as lovers, or like man and wife; and you find steps taken to prevent any disturbance to their intercourse during the night. What is the conclusion you come to? You come to the conclusion, that the care that is exercised to facilitate this communication is taken to
1364
facilitate an adulterous intercourse between them.
Now, my lords, it becomes necessary to direct your lordships attention to the general circumstances that took place at the Villa d'Este—the degree of familiarity existing between the parties, spoken to, not by one, two, or three witnesses, but by the concurrent testimony of such a body of witnesses as to render it perfectly impossible to discredit the truth of their testimony. They are seen always together, walking arm in arm in the garden, going in a canoe on the lake; they are seen, at different times, kissing each other privately in the garden. You will remember the testimony of one witness in particular, not a member of the household, but a person who was attending in the exercise of his trade, who, upon one occasion, saw them sitting upon a bench together at the end of a walk in the garden: Bergami got up; she pulled him down by the flap of his coat, and throwing her arms round his neck, embraced him. I mention this only as one of the many instances spoken to by the witnesses, of the familiarities between these parties at the Villa d'Este. Why, my lords, in ordinary cases, if you see between a married woman and a man in equal situation of life, these kind of familiarities; and if you see anxious preparations made to enable him to have an opportunity of access to her bed-room, where he is shut up, night after night in that situation, I say, that no jury, that no Court, could by possibility refuse to come to the inference of guilt. But, my lords, I do not rest my case only upon those general circumstances of intimacy, regard, affection, and attachment, that existed at the Villa d'Este; but I call your lordships attention to some particulars of a nature so striking and so strong as to admit only of one construction and one conclusion. My learned friends may say, that no attention is to be paid to this evidence—that these witnesses are not worthy of credit—they may contradict the witnesses, or impeach their credit; but if the facts remain uncontradicted, and the witnesses unimpeached, then look at the conclusion you must draw from these facts which I am about to state-not as the only facts, but facts selected from the whole; because, to go through the whole, would fatigue your lordships, and not strengthen the argument. I therefore select one or two facts which, if true, no doubt can remain as to the infer-

1365
ence they afford. Your lordships will remember a witness of the name of Ragga-zoni; he was working in a grotto of the garden at the Villa d'Este: he heard some persons in an adjoining room, which was separated from the grotto by a small passage. He heard them talking and laughing; it excited his attention, and he went round the scaffold for the purpose of ascertaining what they were doing, and how they were occupied. My lords, in that place there were two figures, the one of Adam and the other of Eve; each of which had a fig-leaf worn in a particular manner, that has been described. What were the princess and Bergami doing? They were removing the fig-leaf: they laughed, and talked, and joked with each other. Is this story true? If it be true, the conclusion is obvious. My lords, I remember in the case to which I have referred, where I read the judgment of sir William Scott, that a letter was produced, written by the lady to the person with whom the adulterous intercourse was supposed to have been carried on, entering into some circumstances of an indelicate nature; and I remember also that the judge laid hold of that fact as decisive of the case; he said, that no woman would have so written to a man, unless an adulterous intercourse had taken place between them. My lords, I apply that principle and that rule to the case before us. I say, it is quite impossible, if the fact now stated be true, that these parties should have so conducted themselves upon this particular occasion, and with reference to this circumstance, if an adulterous intercourse had not taken place between them.
My lords; another circumstance which took place at the Villa d'Este also, which was told by the witness Galdini; and I recall to your lordships recollection the natural way in which it was told. Because, when we examine evidence, we examine, not merely the probability of the story, but the manner in which it is told. Your lordships remember, in consequence of some circumstances of delay in some orders he was to receive, he went up the stair-case to a landing, where there were several doors: your lordships find, on opening the door of a particular room, in what way he found Bergami and the princess. He found them sitting on a sofa; her neck was uncovered; his arm was about her neck, or round her person. That leads to the same inference. Another witness says, a door was accidently
1366
opened, and the opposite door was open, and he looks through and sees them embracing each other. I ask you again, my lords, to advert to the fact established by another witness. My lords, I beg your lordships again to recollect what took place on the lake; there is a retired spot of the river Brescia, communicating with the lake, where the inhabitants were in the habit of bathing—there is a canoe— her royal highness and Bergami are dressed in trowsers, and are observed in the water. The instant they are observed, they make their escape. I mention these facts, and refer to these witnesses, as confirming Demont and Majoochi by a body of testimony; which I am entitled to say at present, is so strong and irresistible, that I am in fact beating the air when I am anticipating the observations to be made on it by the other side. If it leads but to this conclusion—and I am not now to say whether it will be impeached or not; I am not in a state to say whether it will be contradicted and beat down—but, if it is not, it forms a body of evidence as strong in confirmation of the evidence of Majoochi and Demont, as I ever before witnessed or experienced in a case of this kind in any investigation in a court of justice.
My lords; I will not trouble your lordships further as to what took place at the Villa d'Este. I have embraced all the leading and striking circumstances that occurred there, and I now hasten to circumstances not more conclusive or striking, but of a more peculiar and marked character, and which have been sifted so much by your lordships in the course of this inquiry. But first, my lords, I must beg leave to direct your lordships attention to what took place in Sicily. The princess embarked on board the Leviathan at Genoa to go to Palermo: a certain arrangement of the apartments is made by the officer of the ship; he places the cabins for the females around her royal highness; the cabins for the men are at a distance. Her royal highness comes on board, and inquires into the arrangement and disapproves of it: she removes the females to a distance, and places Bergami's cabin near her own. I allude to this circumstance, to show that it is not a fable and invention that the witnesses have been, stating, as to the care taken to have her apartment contiguous to that of Bergami; because you find that even on board a British ship the same care is exercised by

1367
her royal highness, perhaps not with a certainty that it might lead to the commission of adultery, but affording at least a chance of it—there was no light in the cabin during the night—it would afford an opportunity of an adulterous intercourse; but the evidence does not show that it took place on board the vessel; but, I say, it is in confirmation, as I before stated, of the general principle on which these parties acted; and, I add, it was done with a view to afford an opportunity of an adulterous intercourse, if it could by any possibility be carried on.
My lords the party proceed to Palermo and to Messina. At Messina I beg leave to advert again to what took place with regard to the apartments—the princess's first, the countess Oldi's next, Bergami's next, Demont's next; Demont is locked in every night; the key of her door is turned, and there is the princess, the countess Oidi and Bergami, in adjoining apartments. Demont is called out of her room in the morning—by whom? repeatedly by the princess herself—in what state? in the state in which she got out of bed, with the addition of a cloak or mantle thrown over her—she passes through the room of Bergami for that purpose. Where is Bergami? he is in the room. So that the habits of these parties were such—the intercourse had been carried on so long—that without scruple or reserve, her royal highness appears in the bed-room of Bergami in the dress in which she leaves her bed, with the addition of a mantle. Is that reconcilable with any thing but what I have stated? That is not all—we find that, upon one occasion, Bergami asked leave to go to Messina. In the kindest terms it is given him. Her royal highness calls him"mon cceur," "mon ami," and at parting they embrace each other—the parties being in such a situation as to carry on this connection, they are found embracing and kissing. Here they embarked on board the Clorinde. On board the Clorinde there is some hesitation arising about the table. Captain Pechell says, "I am desirous in every possible way of accommodating her royal highness; but there is one circumstance of obstruction, I must insist that one sacrifice shall be made by her royal highness, without which it is impossible that I can provide her a table. I, as a British officer, cannot sit down at the same table with a man who has waited behind my chair. I should be dishonour-
1368
ing the situation which I hold, I should be dishonouring the rank which I fill, if I were to accede to this. "Accordingly, a message is delivered to her royal highness, in which she is requested to make this sacrifice. She treats it lightly, and says," I did it to accommodate captain Pechell; I did not like to give him the trouble of two tables. "Is that true? Was that the motive? Can that statement be true? Her royal highness had been in the habit before, for a considerable period, of dining with this man. It was not, therefore, for that purpose; but it was that it had become her habit to dine with this man every day, and she still clung to it. But, further; if it was to be a sacrifice, in the manner mentioned, to accommodate captain Pechell, captain Pechell did not wish to be so accommodated." He says, I am ready to provide for Bergami elsewhere, "the moment she says it is to accommodate captain Pechell. One would suppose that there difficulty would cease. But, no— her royal highness takes a day or two to consider; she clings to her resolution; and Bergami dines with her every day during that voyage. My lords, why do I state this? To show that the course of her royal highness was not plain and simpleand direct—to show that there was some mystery in this—to show that she did not avow the truth—to show how much importance she attached to having this person near her, and that she could not, for the sake of appearances, consent to make this sacrifice.
My lords; we then proceed to Catania; and I beg to call your lordships recollection to what passed at Catania, because it is most important. There, there was a particular arrangement of the apartments, which, in consequence of the indisposition of Bergami, was afterwards altered. Her royal highness slept in the room adjoining the room of mademoiselle Demont and Mariette Bron her sister; on the other side slept the countess of Oldi; Bergami being ill, he was put into the room occupied by the countess of Oldh, and the countess of Oldi was placed in the apartments of her royal highness with the little Victorine. Your lordships will see, therefore, that during this period Demont, and her sister slept between the rooms occupied by the princess and Bergami. They were in the habit of leaving their room at nine in the morning to go to breakfast; before that time they had made no observations; the doors had been closed, neither

1369
Bergami nor her royal highness had appeared after breakfast—on returning, the doors were sometimes open, sometimes closed —generally her royal highness was up; but one morning, remaining there beyond the usual time, according to the best of her recollection, I believe her sister being present, about the hour of ten her royal highness, with the pillows on which she was accustomed to sleep, came out of the room of Bergami: she sees Demont, and passes into her own room, contrary to her usual custom saying nothing. My lords, as to this fact, according to the course that has been pursued in the cross—examination on the other side during the whole progress of this inquiry, no questions I believe were put; but your lordships, in the discharge of the important duty which is cast upon you, thought it necessary that some questions should be put, for the purpose of seeing how directly these facts lead to the conclusion that a large part of the night had been passed by the princess in the bed-room of Bergami; for your lordships asked, "whether Demont had quitted her room that morning? She said, no?—How long hadyoubeen awake? Two hours.—During that time had her royal highness passed through your room No." The answer to all this shows, that, for two hours at least, with the pillows on which her royal highness usually reposed, she was in the bed-room of the courier.
Now, my lords, when I have stated this fact, I am aware again, that it will be said that this depends upon the evidence of Demont; and therefore it becomes necessary, as much of the evidence to which I have referred depends upon her credit, fortified and supported throughout as it is by the other facts, to say a word or two on what has been thrown out on the other side to impeach her testimony. My lords, certain letters have been referred to, and certain expressions in one of those letters of high feeling for the exalted qualities, the charity, the benevolence, the sensibility and other virtues, which are supposed to be possessed, in so eminent a degree, by her royal highness. My lords, I have no interest to detract from those praises. I have no doubt, knowing the illustrious race from which she has sprung, and knowing these are princely virtues, that she possesses them in the high degree staled; but it is going too far to suppose, that generosity, however exalted, that charity, however extensive, that sensibility, however amiable, are inconsistent with a
1370
woman's being the victim of a degraded and debasing attachment. Does not the history of the world show, that those qualities are consistent with the case which is making out against her royal highness? Is there any man that knows what passes in the mind, the heart, and bosom of man, that can rely on an argument of this description? But it is not necessary to dwell on this; because there is another point which must carry conviction to the mind of every individual who hears me. I mean the scene at Pesaro, when Demont quitted her royal highness's service. I ask your lordships to recollect the miserable intrigue which was there carried on, and whether your lordships do not understand, from these letters, in what spirit and with what view they were written. My lords, you will recollect, that the servant was writing a letter, and that some suspicions were raised by Bergami as to the contents and object of that letter—he came into the room while she was writing—he altered the arrangement for sending it from Pesaro—and he imposed on her, a relation, a tool, I say of his own. She took the letter to the post office, put it in with her own hand; and on the following day, to the disgrace of all parties concerned in that transaction, that letter was found in the hands of the princess! My lords, that is not the only instance of intercepted letters—that is not the only instance of a breach of private confidence; because, your lordships will recollect, there was another letter that was taken from the post-office—terms in the letter were altered—the letter was again put in the post-office, and, in this altered form, it afterwards reached its destination. Nay, my lords, this is not all—because the correspondence between the maid Le Bron, who still remained in her royal highness's service, was carried on partly in the handwriting of the princess herself!
Why, my lords, do I advert to these circumstances? Not for the purpose of making any observations on the conduct of her royal highness foreign from the cause, because I trust I am incapable of doing it—but I make them for a valid and legitimate reason. It appears that this young woman was attached, and warmly attached, to her sister—it appears that this sister was totally dependent upon her situation with her royal highness for her support and rank in life; and therefore, knowing that letters were intercepted— knowing how the correspondence was

1371
carried on—it is quite certain, when she wrote any letters to her sister, she must have known and felt that those letters would of necessity find their way into the hands of her royal highness. My lords, it becomes therefore material and important to consider this fact, when we are construing the letters in question; it becomes material to consider this fact, because it gives a clue to the terms of extravagant praises used in the letter. It was of importance to her sister's interest, not mere-y that she should not detract from the merits of her royal highness, but that she should conciliate the friendship and regard of that exalted personage. My lords, there is another observation also very material. Something is said about her coming to London—that she had an intention of coming to London in the situation of a governess. My lords, the moment that fact was known at Pesaro, what would be the consequence?—all the indignation of the princess would be drawn down upon the sister; she would be considered as coming to this country to betray what had been passing; and in consequence she alludes to some supposed application which had been made to her to go to London, for the purpose of giving evidence, and which application she had resisted. Why was that done? It was done for the purpose of satisfying the mind of her royal highness, that although she did come to London as a governess, her royal highness had no reason to apprehend she would betray the secrets with which she had become acquainted.—My lords, again, with respect to the letter from Rimini. And here, my lords, give me leave to observe upon the course pursued by my learned friends—three letters are produced—three letters are proved by Demont to have been sent—she proves that they are in her hand-writing. But, my learned friends carefully select for their own purposes only two of them, and withhold the other. Your lordships had decided, that questions could not be put as to the contents of letters; because, if they could, garbled extracts might be given in evidence. My learned friends being, therefore, prevented in this, give only two letters in evidence. What is the other? The other is a letter from Rimini. What led to that? What I have already stated—a conversation had taken place between Bergami and Demont—"for God's sake take care—it will be the ruin of the girl!—write a letter to the Queen
1372
ask her pardon—conciliate her—I have done so—I wrote from Pesaro, and from Rimini—I wrote a second letter, which has been given in evidence."—When your lordships take the letter, take the explanation also, and see if that is not satisfactory as to the import of the second letter. So much with respect to these letters of Demont. Is there any thing else that has been offered to impeach her testimony? Nothing whatever; I do not call to mind a single fact. My learned friends cross-examined very sparingly, as to the facts of the case; and when your lordships are asked to reject her evidence, on account of these letters, an inference is drawn, and a statement is made, which the circumstances do not at all warrant. I ask of your lordships to look at the long letter, out of which the principal doubt arises, and to say, whether it is not obvious, from its language and phrases, that it was written under the impression that her royal highness would see it? It is, I conceive, impossible for men of common understanding—for men of common sense—to examine that letter, and not to see that it was written for this particular purpose. Passing over the general feeling, the style, language, and complimentary diction which appeared in the first letter, I will refer, in proof of what I have said, to certain passages in the letter itself. Demont directs her sister to communicate so and so to her royal highness. Is it not clear, then, if those communications were made, that her royal highness would naturally wish to see those letters? The only argument that I have heard, of any consequence, on the other side, is, that from certain names being mentioned, there appeared to be something confidential in those letters, and that they could not, therefore, possibly have been meant for exposure. This arose on the cross-examination, and may be traced to the delicacy of the witness. It was observed by the learned counsel, "a person's name is mentioned in this letter, and of course it is confidential, because you wish that name to be suppressed." But what is the answer which reason gave, and which must flash on the mind of every man? It was not with respect to his being known at Pesaro that this suppression was called for. It would be of no consequence to her, or to the individual mentioned, if the circumstances had been known there. But the proceedings of your lordships are sent

1373
through Europe, by means of the public Journals, and the witness feared that the disclosure of a name might lead to scenes which it was better to prevent by withholding it from the public. This was the only point my learned friends had by which it was hoped to impeach the credit of the witness; but, as I have already stated, the evidence of Demont is supported, in its general details, by the great mass of evidence. If what the counsel on the other side say be correct —if there is no ground for casting an imputation on the character of her royal highness—if there is nothing mysterious in the conduct of this courier—if Bergami was advanced in the service, solely on account of his merits, and the respect he bore to an honourable mistress; if such was his situation, and the character of his connexion, what is the inevitable conclusion to which it leads? Could there be a more desirable witness than that man himself, to contradict the testimony of Demont? She spoke of his conduct when the three parties only where present: not on one occasion, but many. If the connexion of Bergami with her royal highness has been such as is alleged in the bill, he certainly could not appear at your lordships bar; but, if it was a pureconnexion, unsullied by those circumstances which I have stated, why was he not opposed to this witness? Why was he not brought forward to contradict Demont—to show that a base attack was made on the character and honour of the most amiable and virtuous princess in the world—to prove that Demont had been falsely accusing her royal highness with crimes that were never committed?
Having made these observations on the statement of my learned friend, relative to the testimony of this witness, I call on your lordships to consider the whole of the evidence, to take all the story together, and to see whether she was ultimately contradicted in any point that can destroy the inference to which her testimony must evidently lead. I ask of their lordships to mark the evidence on both sides, and to mark how the case now stand?. At Milan this man had been employed as a courier in general Pino's service. He afterwards was admitted to the same rank in her royal highness's household. But in the course of a few months he becomes her royal highness's equerry, then her chamberlain, then by her influence) knight of Malta, then baron de
1374
la Franchina, then knight of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and then grand master of the order which her royal highness herself created. Your lordships will also find him possessed of a considerable property even at the very gates of Milan. The man who had been a few-years before living in a prison (for what reason I know not), who had received three livres a day from general Pino— this man you find suddenly covered with orders and honours. What is the cause of all this? What entitled him to all these favours? My lords, I do not mention this as conclusive, but only as it serves to confirm other facts which have been disclosed before your lordships bar. It is impossible to explain her royal highness's extravagant attachment to this man in any other way than by supposing, their intercourse to have been as we have described it, and as your lordship must believe it to have been. Another circumstance happened at Catania, to which I must beg to call your lordships attention. You will be pleased then to recollect that a picture of her royal highness was painted as a penitent Magdalen. Every body knows what it is, and to ask for a description of it would be idle. It has the upper part of the person considerably exposed. It has been proved to you that this picture was found in the possession of Bergami, and need I ask you for whom you think it was painted? You will, no doubt, say for Bergami; and you will be the more satisfied it was so, when you also recollect that, a portrait of him was seen in her royal highness's possession. He is painted as a Turk, she arranges the turban, she adjusts the upper part of the dress, and says, je paime mieux comme ga. Now why all this? But I shall merely state facts, and leave all commentary to your lordships judgment. On board the Clorinde, captain Pechell never went into her majesty's apartments, but Demont sees Bergami in his great coat lying in one bed, and her royal highness in another, near him. But I pass on, and mention facts. A vessel, termed a polacre, was hired for the purpose of making the long voyage. At Messina it appears the arrangement of the cabins was made, assigning to every branch of the intended passengers their respective situations, and every thing was prepared for the voyage. At Augusta her royal highness came on board, and immediately set about altering the ar-.

1375
rangement which had been made. It! should be recollected, that on each side this vessel there was a passage, on each side of which were the cabins; at the end of this passage was the saloon, which traversed the whole breadth of the vessel; and beyond the saloon were the apartments of the princess and the countess Oldi. Two doors opened into the dining-room, one leading to the apartments of the servants, and the other communicating with her royal highness's own rooms. The change here made by her royal highness in the disposition of the rooms was consistent with her former and constant practice. Orders were given to have the door contiguous to the rooms of her women, shut up, leaving, by means of the only remaining door, a free communication with that part of the ship where Bergami slept, contiguous to the dining-room. On this voyage till they arrived at Tunis, passing by Utica and Savona, the same arrangement of the bed-rooms continued. Shortly after they left Tunis, Bergami's bed was transferred to the dining-room. It is obvious that, according to this arrangement, so long as these doors were kept closed, no person could interrupt the connexion between the princess and Bergami. This disposition continued till they arrived at Jaffa, when a tent was raised upon the deck, and two beds were placed under it, one for the princess and the other for Bergami. This arrangement continued for six weeks. I beg to call your lordships recollection to the familiarities which a host of witnesses have proved to have taken place during the residence of her royal highness at the Villa d'Este; and I will then beg you to look at the evidence of the familiarities proved to have taken place on board this vessel. I call on you to look at the testimony of the mate of the vessel, Paturzo, the captain Gargiulo, and the cook. They were there seen sitting on the same gun mutually supporting each other—they were seen kissing; and Paturzo, the captain, deposed that he had seen Bergami kissing on a sofa with her royal highness leaning over him in a position so indecent that he thought it was not fit for his crew to remain within sight, and actually ordered them to withdraw to a distance. It was in this part of the evidence, too, that they were shown to have slept under the same tent, chosen by themselves, for a period of six weeks. If these facts, my lords,
1376
have been proved, there can be no doubt as to the conclusion your lordships must come to. And what has been the course taken to invalidate them? Why, my learned friend put a question as to some communication existing between the tent and the dining-room below, thereby aiming to establish the hypothesis, that although they were locked up in the tent every night, Bergami might have availed himself of this private retreat to go below and pass the night. But, before you allow yourselves to be led away for a single moment, by any such hypothesis, I entreat your lordships to look at the circumstances proved as to this particular fact. The parties were seen to go into the tent, which was then shut up, and Bergami was known to remain at least for ten minutes every night, he himself handing out the candle, to be taken away. As far as concerns his sleeping below, the witness Demont said, that if he had gone down, he must have passed by the foot of her bed, and she never saw him on any occasion. Birollo stated, that he saw Bergami coming out of the tent, several times, in the morning, for purposes which it is not necessary for me to describe; and he was found in his bed in the tent on its being opened every morning. After this, then, are your lordships to be seriously called on to believe that Bergami did avail himself of that private retreat from the tent, when the deck and all the other passages were open, and that he came every morning from his place of rest below, just in order that he might be found stretched on the bed in the tent when it was opened? It is not only contrary to all natural inference, but contrary to the direct and positive testimony of five persons of unimpeached credit, all of whom spoke to these facts.
Without proceeding one step further, have I not, my lords, shown enough to satisfy any man's mind as to what passed between the princess and Bergami at this most important period? Who is there that, admitting the fact of the parties having been seen kissing and embracing each other, and indulging in every species of familiarity daily, will stand up and say that he can by possibility come to any other conclusion than that adultery has been committed? Have the counsel for the defence, in their cross-examination, put any questions to the witnesses, as to these facts? Not one. They content themselves with asking the captain of the po-

1377
lacre, how much have you for coming I here? What is his answer? He says, I was dragged here, I was forced by the minister to come; and, without hesitation, he states that which he is to receive as an equivalent. Mark the candour of the witness; he says plainly, that during the time he is here, he may have lost money; but that, if his speculations had succeeded, he should have gained much more than he will now get. Commercial persons well know the difficulty and expense of bringing forward witnesses in this country. Indeed every one at all familiar with courts of justice, must be aware of the extent of the remuneration allowed to persons in the situation of the captain of the polacre, and be satisfied that the sum he received was not more than he ought to have been paid. Then see the cautious guarded manner in which he gave the whole of his evidence, and ask yourselves, my lords, if you can possibly think he came here for the purpose of prevaricating, or swearing to acts he never saw. The same observations apply to Paturzo. He confirmed the evidence of the captain. I now, my lords, leave this case as to the polacre, entirely to your lordships' judgment. Your knowledge of men and manners will enable you to draw such inferences as the evidence given will warrant; and evidence, give me leave to say, which if not disproved, can only lead to one conclusion—that of supporting the preamble of this bill. Your lordships will not fail to remark, that her royal highness on this occasion ordered a bath to be got ready below, and Majoochi prepares it in the bedroom of her royal highness. The princess and Bergami go into that room, where they are shut up for half an hour or an hour, and he subsequently calls Demont to dress her, Majoochi all the while remaining in the anti-room. This is confirmed by Demont, who says, she found her royal highness in her nightgown. I admit she does not recollect, whether the bath was in the bed-room or the dining-room; but Majoochi, who prepared it, has sworn it was in the bed-room; and can you suppose, under these circumstances, that Demont came over here to give false testimony?
What, my lords, was the conduct of her royal highness at Aum? What from Jaffa to Jerusalem? At Aum a tent was erected; and two beds prepared, one for her royal highness and the other for Bergami; their hours of repose were the same, they
1378
were inclosed within it together, no one else being present. This fact, indeed, is not disputed, but a different colouring is attempted to be given to it. It is asked, was she undressed? No; she was in her petticoat. Was he undressed? No; he had on his great coat and his drawers. Yes, and there were two persons in an outside room; but what of all that, what inference is to be drawn from this circumstance, preceded by so many others of the same sort? The fact is, they try to reconcile their case with ours; and all they have got out about the parties not being undressed can in no degree answer the inference which can alone be drawn from the situation in which they are sworn to have been. I admit there is no direct evidence of adultery then taking place; and that is, because they lived so long in this species of intercourse, that it was not particularised on that occasion. It will be unnecessary for me to advert to what passed at Jerusalem. But I fear, my lords, in going through this evidence, that I shall be obliged to take up much of your lordships' valuable time; yet, in order to avoid that as much as possible, I shall now dismiss the polacre, and remind your lordships of what occurred at Terracina. Bergami disembarked there, and after two days absence returned to the vessel. Her royal highness meets him on his arrival, and they resume their intercourse under all the circumstances of man and wife.—Then, my lords, taking all the facts we have offered in evidence, see how continued the story is, how well all its parts hang together. After the return to Italy they took up their residence at the Barona; there one would imagine a person of the exalted station of her royal highness would have selected suitable companions; one would imagine in a city remarkable for its hospitality, that her royal highness would have been surrounded by all the dignified and the great in that capital. But how will your lordships be surprised to find such a distinguished person proposed at the Cassino at Milan, and her admission to it negatived by a black-ball! Does her royal highness live there in seclusion, living that philosophical life, enjoying that dignified retirement, becoming her rank and station? For these purposes she might have avoided society. But what is the society and what the amusements within the house of her royal highness? To that house were admitted persons low in origin, low in character, low in rank, low in

1379
morals, depraved in mind, and of the most debased, debauched, and profligate description. This is the society her royal highness lived in. But this is not the charge against her; and I only use it as an argument to show it to be the natural result of that degrading connexion into which her royal highness fell as the consequence of her guilty attachment. Her royal highness united around her those people; and here the Barona reminds me of a circumstance which it gives me pain to alludeto—so much so, that Ishall only mention the name of Mahomet. I know the sneers and the contempt with which this part of the case was received by the other side; but soon after its overpowering effect stunned my learned friends, and they forbore any further questions respecting it. Is this not, my lords, of the same character with all the other facts we have proved, but pushed to a much further excess than the other scenes at the Barona? Her royal highness might probably have seen this once; but if she had the feelings of a virtuous woman, would she have tolerated the repetition of such an exhibition; would she have laughed and been amused at it, rather than turn off the criminal individual with ignominy from her presence? My lords, the whole of these circumstances can only lead to one conclusion. While at the Barona her royal highness took a tour to Germany. And at the first inn she stopped the same alterations were made in the bed-room as on all the former occasions. This fact is not disputed, but a different colour is attempted to be put upon it. True; this, in a great measure, rests upon the evidence of Demont, which is still open to contradiction. But let us pass on to Carlsruhe. At Carlsruhe, their apartments are also contiguous to each other, and the servant Barbara Kress, on one occasion, saw Bergami in bed, his arm white, the princess on the side of his bed, and his arm twined round her neck; on entering the door, the Quean starts, and the chambermaid retires. The witness also, in making the bed, finds in it a cloak belonging to the princess. This story the servant tells at the time; in consequence of which the fact comes to be known. She is now brought here with difficulty, and, as your lordships have all seen, has so comported herself as to show every word she swore was true. From the circumstances in evidence, the inference of an adulterous intercourse at Carlsruhe is direct, unless the contrary can be
1380
proved on the other side. From Carlsruhe, her royal highness proceeded by a circuitous route, by the way of Vienna, to Trieste. Well, what takes place at Trieste? A witness—Cuchi, I believe—who had been for nine years at the head of an establishment there, in his situation of head waiter, observed particulars which I will now call to the recollection of your lordships. His testimony may be impeached; he may be contradicted if what he has stated is not correct. This witness deposed, that at successive times he had observed Bergami coming out of his room in his morning-gown, with drawers and his slippers on, and going into the countess Oldi's room, which led to the princess's room. There were two beds in the room of her royal highness, and two persons were proved not to have been in the room; yet the two beds had been Iain in. All these facts prove an adulterous intercourse at that period, and by circumstances, too, which mutually confirm each other.
I now beg to draw your lordships' attention to the evidence of the two witnesses who have been recently examined, I mean Rastelli and Sacchi; and I shall first allude to Rastelli's testimony, because, in a particular circumstance, he was corroborated by Sacchi, namely, that the princess on one occasion went out to meet Bergami, and not meeting him on the first occasion, she again went out, and that when they met, they embraced and kissed each other, and the princess got out of her carriage, and returned in that of Bergami's. There is another fact to which Rastelli deposed, namely, the observation which he had made as to the position of the hand of her royal highness with respect to Bergami; and to this fact, to which it is only necessary to allude, he has sworn in the most positive and distinct manner. My learned friend, Mr. Den-man, thought it advisable to cross-examine this witness with that degree of accuracy and address for which he is so remarkable; but the result of that cross-examination was most unfavourable to his cause, since it demonstrated beyond a doubt, that the witness detailed what he saw with his own eyes without colour or exaggeration. An attempt was made to entangle him in inconsistency, and to show that his character was suspicious. He was asked if he had not stolen corn, and been dismissed from the situation of her royal highness; if he had not been one

1381
of the most active agents of the Milan Commission and lost his credit? He positively contradicts the former imputation; and with respect to the latter serious charge, he tells your lordships, that he was merely employed in the situation of courier, which he discharged faithfully, and to the discharge of which, he apprehended, no disgrace could be attached. We come then, to the evidence of another person, the last witness examined, Giuseppe Sacchi, who had been for a year in the service of her royal highness; who had been raised from a common soldier to the rank of lieutenant in the Italian army; who left the service of her royal highness, and received not merely an ordinary recommendation, but one of the highest characters that could be given or received. He stated those facts which I have already alluded to, which had occurred at the Barona; he stated also that he went into Germany with her royal highness, and among all he stated, there were three or four facts so decisive in their nature that I will confine my observations to them. At Ruffinelli, Bergami was ill; he had occasion to visit him, and be saw by the door, which was partly open, Bergami in his bed; that her royal highness also was there in the room by the side of a bed on the sofa. I mention this, my lords, as illustrative of that kind of intercourse which never occurs except between man and wife, or those who stand in the same relation; and if you believe these facts, the conclusion, that an adulterous intercourse took place between the parties, is inevitable. This witness was also at the Villa Brande. There he saw Bergami at two o'clock in the morning go out of his own bed-room into the bed-room of her royal highness, from which he did not return until after the expiration of an hour. On another occasion, he saw the same thing take place. This witness, against whose character no impeachment can rest, stands, if possible, higher after the cross-examination; he has sworn to facts, which, in any ordinary case, would be sufficient to establish the charge; he also swore to the fact, which took place in the carriage, but which I will not offend your lordships' ears by describing.
I have thus endeavoured, my lords, in discharging the duty imposed upon me by your lordships, to offer to your lordships such observations upon the circumstances in evidence before you,
1382
as those circumstances appeared to me to warrant—a duty, my lords, by no means agreeable, in the present stage of the cause; because I know not what may be urged on the other side, and may therefore have been contending with shadows. I have made such remarks on the evidence and on the characters of the witnesses, as the case appeared to me to require, and the present circumstances justified me in doing. I beg now to be allowed to revert to what was stated yesterday, namely, that the proof of the case had fallen infinitely short of the Opening of my learned friend, the attorney-general. I appeal to your lordships, whether the case now in evidence, be not full as strong in the facts and the details, as the Opening, and whether it does not justify all which my honourable and learned friend stated, in discharge of the duty which your lordships imposed upon him. It is impossible for me, my lords, to sit down without alluding to one topic which has been dragged into every cross-examination, and rung in our ears, not only from the beginning to the end of this inquiry, but from the first moment that any mention was made of the subject, and for the purpose of involving in reproach every individual who might happen to take any part in the present proceedings. My lords, I have always felt and avowed, so far from thinking it necessary to justify the Milan Commission, that it was quite impossible for the persons at the head of his majesty's government not to have established some mode of inquiry; that it was quite impossible that they should not have inquired into reports, in the highest degree derogatory to her royal highness, and in general circulation throughout Italy and other parts of Europe. This being the case, was it not, my lords, the duty of government to ascertain, whether those reports were well or ill-founded? In doing this, they had but one course to pursue; which was, to select persons eminent in point of character, eminent for integrity and knowledge to make that inquiry. That course, my lords, they have pursued. As judicious, as proper a selection as could be made, was adopted. The gentleman at the head of the Commission.(Mr, Cooke) is known to beamanof the highest respectability, of unimpeachable integrity, and of great skill and knowledge of the laws of his country. He was therefore placed at the head of the Commission—if Commission it can be called—for the pur-

1383
pose of obtaining, not idle rumours, but evidence of facts, such as could alone be admitted in every court of this country. And I ask, my lords, whether it was possible to have a gentleman more fit to conduct such an inquiry? Another gentleman, of great experience, of great practical and professional knowledge was attached to the Commission. A third gentleman, colonel Browne, I am not acquainted with; but I am given to understand that his character stands as high as that of any of those who have dared to traduce it. Am I not then justified, my lords, in saying, that it was the duty of his majesty's government to institute such an inquiry into the truth or falsehood of the reports which were in circulation? And am I not further justified in saying, that they exercised a sound discretion, liable to no imputation whatever, "in their selection of the persons to conduct the necessary inquiry? I beg pardon, my lords, for having ocrupied your lorships attention so long. I have endeavoured fairly and faithfully to state to your lordships the evidence which has been adduced in this case. I have been most anxious not to torture or discolour any fact. If I have done so I sincerely regret it; both for my own sake and for the sake of justice. And I hope I may be allowed, in conclusion, to say—and I do say it from the bottom of my heart, and in the utmost sincerity—that the result of the present inquiry may be, that her majesty shall establish, to the full and entire satisfaction of your lordships, of the country at large, her full and unsullied innocence. Whether, from the present aspect of the case, this be or be not likely, it would be unbecoming in me to offer an opinion. I can only say, that the preamble of the Bill has been proved, unless the proofs should he impeached by evidence, clear, distinct, and satisfactory on the part of her majesty.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose to propose that the counsellor her majesty should be asked, whether it was now their intention to open the case for the defence, or to ask the delay which had been agreed to.
The Earl of Lonsdalesaid, that in this stage of the proceedings he conceived it was not improper to remind a noble earl (Liverpool) of the observations he had made on a former occasion, respecting one of the provisions of this Bill, and
1384
to ask that noble earl what determination he had come to on that subject. His own feelings, he admitted, and he believed the feelings of many of their lordships, were, that it was extremely desirable to separate the two provisions of Degradation and Divorce in the bill. His impression was—an impression in which a large proportion of that House concurred with him, he believed—that the conclusion which their lordships should come to on the bill, ought to be conformable to the evidence alone given at the bar. Where an offence was charged, there should be no aggravation proposed in the punishment. The measure of the punishment ought rather to fall short of the offence. He therefore hoped the noble earl would state whether there was any determination to withdraw the clause of Divorce.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to address their lordships in consequence of the observations of the noble earl. Before he spoke to that subject, in order that no unguarded expression of his might convey an idea which he did not intend, he begged to say that it was his decided feeling, and he trusted the feeling of every noble lord who heard him, that no opinion whatever should be formed of the evidence, until the whole defence should be before them. Their minds ought to be kept free from impression respecting it, if possible they ought only to listen, to weigh, and to consider; their minds ought to be kept entirely free upon the evidence before them until the defence should be closed. Having stated thus much, he would say, in reference to what had been said by the noble earl, that it was utterly impossible that any alteration should be made in the bill, until the whole case was closed, until the question of the second reading was disposed of, and the bill should be committed. What he had stated, on the discussion of the motion of a noble baron, was stated in consequence of imputations thrown out respecting the provision alluded to in the bill, and insinuations made, not only in that House, but elsewhere, that Divorce was the object of the bill. He had disclaimed that that had been the object of the bill; he had then stated the object of the bill to be public justice; he had then stated the object of the bill to be to uphold the honour of the country, and not to relieve the illustrious individual at the head of the state. He had then stated, that it might be made a separate proposi-

1385
tion, and it was open to the House to deal with it as they might think proper. He could now most distinctly say, that the illustrious individual alluded to had no wish whatever that the bill should operate as a measure of personal relief. He (lord Liverpool]) had introduced the provision of Divorce as a plain and fair inference from the other provision of Degradation, if that were made out. If, however, a strong feeling existed in the House or in the country, founded on religious considerations, against this provision, he was perfectly willing to withdraw it. He wished to confine himself to those observations— he wished to set the illustrious individual right on this subject. The illustrious individual did not wish for it as a measure of personal relief [Hear, hear!].
Earl Greyagreed with what the noble earl had stated respecting the propriety of preserving their judgments unbiassed till they could come to a full decision, when the whole case should be closed. When he therefore stated any thing hypothetically, he hoped he would hot be understood as prejudging on the one side or the other. A more unseasonable proposition than that suggested by the noble lord, who first spoke, he had never heard. No answer that the noble earl (Liverpool) could have given could have had the effect of warranting such a proposition. It seemed to him to be a proposition to restrain the counsel at the bar within certain limits in their defence. The clause alluded to in the Bill could be considered only when the whole case was closed, and the Bill came under consideration in a committee. Now, it was impossible that any alteration whatever could be proposed or made. The defence was, therefore, to be directed against the whole of the bill, as it stood at present. It was not only a bill of Pains and Penalties, but a bill of Divorce. That was the state of the bill now before their lordships; and to that extent it was the duty of the counsel to direct the evidence for the defence. He agreed with the explanation of the noble lord; for it was only the same statement, somewhat more at length, which he had given on the former occasion referred to; and he (earl Grey) had at the time acquitted him of any such object as that alluded to. He was very glad to hear from the noble earl now what he had-been persuaded of at first—that personal relief was not the object
1386
of the high and illustrious individual. This was a statement which he received with perfect confidence and satisfaction. Ultimately, without giving any opinion of the result of this proceeding, if the proceeding concluded so as that her majesty should incur pains and penalties, degradation from her high and illustrious situation, he thought, must be the necessary consequence. If she should be degraded from the rank, character, and situation of Queen Consort, she might not remain the wife of the Sovereign. Not because it would be a personal relief to divorce, but because it was absurd in terms that one degraded from the rank of Queen should be the consort of the King. A bill degrading the Queen, who was to remain the wife of the King, must be considered a bill degrading the King also [Hear, hear!]. This was not the time for discussing this subject; but if such a proposition should hereafter be made, he should state his objections to it. At present, such a question could not be introduced for any useful purpose; it could lead to no practical conclusion; it could have no effect whatever on the character of the bill, but on the course to be pursued by counsel for the defence. He, therefore, must regret that the subject had been introduced on the present occasion. Any statements by the noble earl (Liverpool) could be viewed as the declarations of an individual only. The bill bore its own character on the face of it. Upon that bill, as it now stood, their opinions and observations were to be given on the second reading. The clause alluded to could be considered only in the committee. They were not to decide on the fate of the bill, as it now stood, without hearing the whole case, and without discussion, examination, and inquiry.
The Earl of Lonsdale,in explanation, denied that he had made any proposal to limit the proceedings of counsel.
Earl Greysaid, that he understood the noble earl to suggest that the counsel should confine themselves to the clauses inflicting Pain and Penalty, to the exclusion of the clause of Divorce.
The Earl of Liverpoolconsidered the question, though put before the counsel were called in, as not intended to affect their mode of proceeding.
Earl Greysaid, he was sorry if he had misrepresented the noble lord, but he thought that if ever he had heard any thing plainly, the distinction was taken between

1387
a bill of Pains and Penalties and a bill of Divoce.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, he had great satisfaction in agreeing with his noble friend. He had not risen, however, merely to express his satisfaction, but his astonishment, at the suggestion of the noble lord on the other side. He meant no disrespect; he believed the noble lord bad consulted with no one upon the subject; but this was a most momentous consideration, and he would express freely what he thought in every stage of it. The question now was, the proof of the preamble to the bill; that was, had the illustrious person done what was deserving of a bill of Pains and Penalties, be their amount great or small? Whether the whole or a part of the bill should be passed was not the question at present. They had only one half of the evidence before them. If the illustrious person should not remain Queen—(they had been told a great deal of the public feeling)—what would be the public feeling, if one degraded from the rank of Queen should remain the King's wife? He desired, as a juror, to be enabled to form his opinion on the whole of the issue.
The Counsel were again called in.
Lord Chancellor.—Mr. Brougham, I apprehend it to be the wish of the House to ask you how you propose to proceed? Whether you propose to proceed to state the defence now, or to take the delay agreed to be allowed?
Mr. Broughamsaid, that surrounded as he was with peculiar and rising difficulties, and threatened to be met with a new bill—[Cries of "Order, order!"].
The Lord Chancellor.—A question has been put to you by the House, and their lordships require an answer.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, I understood that counsel were now at the bar.
The Lord Chancellor.—Counsel were ordered to withdraw, Mr. Brougham, and if they cannot appreciate that courtesy with which the House is accustomed to treat them, by not requiring that they should leave the House, the regulation must, for the future, be enforced. You are asked a question, and you are to confine yourself to the answering that question.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, I am called upon to give an answer to a very serious and momentous question, and it was quite
1388
impossible that I can reply to it by a yea or a nay. I was about to state to your lordships the great and growing difficulties with which we have to contend, and to throw myself on your lordships compassion.
The Lord Chancellor.—You should appeal to the justice of the House, and not to its compassion. The House is not accustomed to be addressed in this way.
Mr. Brougham.—Then I shall put myself on my right. I thought it most respectful to appeal to your compassion, and for no other purpose did I use the expression: however, as you will have the less respectful language, I must adopt it. I ask from you justice then, that as I have had no means of preparation, while my opponents have had opportunities for months before, you will allow me till 12 o'clock to-morrow, which is all the favour I ask.
The Lord Chancellor.—The House wish to know if you will commence your case to-morrow, with a view to go through it, or if you intend to apply for delay?
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, if I may be permitted to say so, I feel myself in the situation of a counsel, and have a right to change my plan as circumstances may suggest. I appeal to such of your lordships as know any thing of Nisi Prius cases, whether it be not customary for I counsel to wait the effect of their defence, before they determine whether they will produce evidence or not. No counsel before was ever so placed on the rack. Permission has always been given the counsel to answer the case made on the other side; and if he finds that he has not made the impression intended, he then asks leave to call evidence. I have not received—I do not say the commands—but the permission of her majesty to ask for any delay at all. Standing in the peculiar situation in which her majesty now stands, having so horrible a prospect before her, and finding it attempted to prove charges of such a character, by evidence of such a description as this, she must feel extremely unwilling to let the case remain so, with all the weight of the Opening, and all the observation of my learned friend who last addressed you. In justice only, if not in compassion, your lordships must see that it is impossible to postpone the right of defence in such circumstances for two or three months. There is only one other alternative. If, indeed, my mouth is to be stopped—if I am not allowed to

1389
exercise what I consider a right, by replying to the case on the other side—I must be content, and reserve myself for that opportunity of explanation that will be afforded elsewhere, and to which I need not now further allude. I have been taken by surprise, in some respect, in being thus called upon to make my election. When I preferred to-day to proceed instanter with the cross-examinations, my most powerful motive was, that I should thereby enable the solicitor-general to sum up his case, and so far prevent the necessity, which may be absolutely fatal, of allowing two or three months to elapse before the defence is begun. If I had entertained a notion that it was intended in any quarter to interfere with my explanation, I should have thought twice before I came to a determination under that delusion.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellorhoped that he had not been guilty of the injustice, as well as presumptuousness, of giving from the chair any hint of what might be the decision of the House. He meant simply to ask, what the counsel for the Queen proposed; and, when that was known, it would remain for their lordships to determine. He did not mean to call upon the counsel at this moment to make their election, unless they preferred it; they might defer their answer until to-morrow morning.
The Earl of Liverpool,before he moved the adjournment, wished the counsel to be informed, that the question would be put to them to-morrow morning at 12 o'clock.
The Counsel were again called in, and the counsel for her majesty were acquainted, that the House desired to be informed in what manner they proposed to proceed, and that to that question the House would receive their answer to-morrow at twelve o'clock.
Mr. Broughambegged to be allowed to state, that he had a most anxious duty to discharge: all that he and his friends had hitherto done was mere trifling, mere nibbling at the corners of the case, compared with what he had yet to go through.—Suppose (he continued) it should be your lordships pleasure, at twelve to-morrow, that I should proceed—gracious God! am I to go on at a moment's warning? Am I, in a case like this, not to have a single hour for reflection and consulta-
1390
tion? To-morrow, at twelve, I am to be called in to say how we wish to proceed; and is it too much that I should then ask you for a delay until Saturday to make some sort of preparation? Is it not, then, better for your lordships to take my present answer, and to declare whether, tomorrow, you will, or will not, hear me? If your lordships say that you will, then to-morrow, at twelve, I shall be ready to open my case; but you will readily perceive that there is a great distinction between a state of certainty and of uncertainty—between knowing that I am to proceed, and a doubt whether I am merely to answer a question upon which I am now prepared. I should wish to know, whether, to-morrow, I am or I am not to go on with my statement? In a common case, ignorance upon this point would be embarrassing; but in this instance it amounts to absolute injustice.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that House did not require the counsel for the Queen to proceed to-morrow, but to state how they wished to proceed; they need not begin until they were fully prepared.
Earl Greysaid, that the application of the counsel was to know whether he would be permitted to make his statement, reserving to himself the right of not determining, until the end of it, whether he should apply for further time to produce his witnesses.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that the question so stated had many bearings, was of infinite importance, and could not be properly discussed in the time yet remaining for the business of the day. It was not to be understood that counsel would be obliged to proceed to-morrow, at twelve; for, if further delay was necessary, God forbid it should not be granted!
Lord Erskinethought it the best course that counsel should attend to-morrow morning, when the question of to-day might be repeated to them. He was sure that they might rely with confidence on the House, and that no such injustice would be done, as to compel them to proceed without all due preparation. They had most anxious and onerous duties cast upon them, and every indulgence ought to be extended to them.
Mr. Broughamentreated the House not to adjourn for one day unnecessarily, as, if it was now decided that he should proceed, he could be just as well prepared to-morrow, as on Saturday. He could not, however, be prepared to-morrow,

1391
unless their lordships at once decided now that he was to be heard.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that it followed, as a consequence, that if counsel could be ready by twelve to-morrow, they could be prepared by Saturday. The House ought to act according to its own notions of what was right, and of what would keep it right. The point stated by the noble earl (Grey) he, for one, considered of infinite importance, and the House ought to allow itself an opportunity for maturely considering it. Certain he was, that the true way for the House to maintain its high character, as a judicial tribunal, was, to act with caution and circumspection in its decisions. He moved that counsel be called in at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to. On the question that the House do adjourn,
The Earl of Dononghmorerose, for the purpose of preventing any misapprehension on the part of the counsel, who had evidently shown that they had laboured under a mistake; or of the public, which might, by the same cause, be led to a wrong conclusion. The counsel had spoken as if something was endeavoured to be forced upon them by the House as a hardship; but nothing could be more unjust than such a supposition, and it ought not to go forth to the world. Nothing had been said from the woolsack which could be construed into a wish that the counsel should arrive at an immediate determination: on the contrary, what had been stated amounted to this—that, on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case, peculiar indulgence ought to be shown; and all the House wished to know was, when the counsel proposed to proceed. Not a word had been uttered about commencing instanter, and he wondered that the Queen's attorney-general had not been able to tell the House, in totidem
1392
verbis, what were his wish and intention. The learned gentleman had talked about making his statement, and then waiting for his evidence; but he (lord D.) hoped that that statement would not be merely imaginary—that it would be founded on facts, and that those facts could be proved. Before he could offer one word of it, he ought to have decided the matter in his mind, and must have the witnesses ready to verify his assertions.
Earl Greywished to understand whether the House adjourned for the purpose of receiving the answer of the Queen s counsel to the question put to them, or for the purpose of hearing to-morrow the statement of the case on the part of her majesty.
The Lord Chancellorreplied, for the former.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought, that tomorrow the question ought to be put, Whether the application of the counsel of the Queen continued the same as it had been to-day? If, however, it turned out to be that he wished to go through his case, or that he wished for an adjournment to a future period, he was of opinion that neither request ought, in justice, to be refused. If, on the other hand, a middle course were suggested, which would leave the counsel at liberty either to call his witnesses immediately, or to delay them until a future occasion, that would be a point requiring great deliberation.
The Earl of Rosslyndid not conceive that the learned counsel had made the latter proposition in the form of an application. He had only said that until the end of his speech he ought not to be called upon to make his option.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Ordered, that the further consideration, and second reading of the said bill be adjourned to to-morrow.