Sitting of 19 August 1820

Preamble
In pursuance of the notice he had given yesterday,
Lord Kingrose. He said, that the counsel on both sides having yesterday closed their arguments, this, it appeared to him, was the only opportunity that remained for a member of their lordships' House to endeavour by some means or other to avert those evils and difficulties, which he, in common with many of their lordships, and with the great body of the public, felt most strongly to be intimately connected with the course they were pursuing—evils and difficulties, the peculiar nature of which it was not necessary for him to state. Nothing which he had heard in the course of the argument submitted to their lordships by the learned counsel who appeared in support of this measure, had tended in the smallest degree to shake the full conviction which he previously entertained, that bills of pains and penalties ought only to be resorted to on great public occasions, when the safety of the state was involved, when the stability of the government was endangered, and when, from their adoption, some extraordinary benefit was likely to be derived. He would ask, as had been most properly asked by a noble lord (Carnarvon) on the preceding day, whether any individual, either in that House or out of it, entertained a serious apprehension that mischief would ensue if this bill were not proceeded with? Not one of their lordships had said that he entertained any degree of fear on that head; and no person whatsoever would, he believed, be found, to declare that he entertained a rational fear of danger if the progress of the measure were stopped. The dread of danger to the royal succession was the only circumstance that could justify this bill; and the circumstances of the case must preclude any such apprehension.
If, then, there was no reason for introducing such a measure on that account—if no great state necessity could be shown for bringing it forward—they were at once reduced to the question of the expediency, the policy, the wisdom of the proceeding. The bill asserted, in the preamble, that great impropriety and indecency of conduct had been manifested by the Queen, and that great scandal was thereby brought on the royal family and

711
on the country. It was highly important, he was aware, that the purity of all the members of the royal family should be preserved unsullied; and that object was stated in the preamble of the bill, in order to justify it. This alleged scandal referred to her majesty's conduct while abroad; and he called on their lordships, before they proceeded further, to see how the case really stood. They all knew that, if her majesty had remained abroad, no proceeding of this kind would have taken place. Then, he demanded, how was this bill necessary to vindicate the honour of the nation and of the royal family, when, if her majesty had pleased, the government would have permitted her to remain abroad, and to have pursued those courses which were so much condemned? No stipulation was made for the individual who was mentioned in the bill to quit her service—no condition of that sort was resorted to. How, then, would the honour of this nation have been vindicated, if the original proposition had been agreed to, and her majesty had been allowed by the government to continue in that situation, and amidst those scenes, where it was said, the crime imputed to her was committed? That was a most extraordinary way indeed to vindicate the insulted honour of the country! This reference to the honour of the nation appeared to him to be a mere pretence. It was completely false to say the bill was necessary to vindicate the honour of the country, when ministers would themselves have allowed those licentious scenes to be continued, in the country where they were said to have been carried on, without molestation; but the moment her majesty arrived in England, where they could not be continued, then this bill was brought in. If there were any doubt as to the real object of this bill, the terms offered to her majesty cleared away that difficulty. As long as an opportunity occurred for the continuance of the crime, ministers would allow it to continue; they would grant the means of its perpetuation—they offered impunity to those who committed it, while the offence could be committed: but the moment it ceased, the moment it became impossible to perpetrate it, then they thought of investigation and punishment. They knew that when her majesty came to England it was impossible that the offence could be continued. They were aware that the person with whom the crime was said to have been committed
712
was a foreigner, and, under the Alien act, might be refused the privilege of remaining in England.
From all these circumstances he drew this conclusion, which appeared to be a correct one—that government would have suffered the crime to be continued with impunity, while it was possible to carry it into practice; but the moment it ceased, then they deemed it necessary to resort to punishment. It was said, that her majesty's conduct was marked by gross indecency, which tended to scandalize the country, and that therefore she was not worthy of the situation of queen of these realms. He wished to know whether it was necessary to proceed in this manner on account of any moral feeling that had been outraged. He should be glad to know whether it would be proper to pass this bill on account of those alleged indecencies of conduct? They ought to pause and inquire whether such conduct demanded, or could justify, a bill of this nature. It might be said that the necessity arose from the moral feeling of the country being wounded. He asked of their lordships to open their eyes and look around the country, and then to say whether this moral feeling was not more likely to be wounded by proceeding with this measure? It was that which would give the great shock to the moral sense and feeling of the country. Nothing could have a more injurious effect on the public morals than their persevering in pressing forward this bill, and giving to the world a statement of all those disgusting scenes from which it was said to have arisen. One of the prominent parts of this bill was that which set forth that an offensive freedom and familiarity had taken place between her majesty and a foreigner—a menial servant. This was an extraordinary accusation. He did not imagine that familiarity with a domestic would have been charged against her majesty as a crime. He recollected that Mr. Burke, in his speech on "Economical Reform", asserted, "that kings are naturally lovers of low company." This he laid down as a rule. And he further stated, that this was the reason why the most dignified and honourable persons in that House ought to be placed about the court, not, he observed, because those individuals would become better by being placed there, but that the court would be improved by their presence. Had the Queen, he demanded, the advantage of having persons of high

713
rank and character placed about her? Was her improvement studied by placing individuals of exalted dignity and virtue about her person? No; she had not been placed in such a situation. She was deprived of those advantages—she was thrown amongst persons of a low rank—she was left to choose her companions as she could, and, therefore, she was liable to be approached by those vices and temptations which were prevalent in such a state of society. But, at all events, he would maintain, that indecencies and irregularities of conduct afforded no reason for passing an ex post facto law—first creating the crime, and then inflicting the punishment.
The learned counsel who was heard yesterday at the bar in support of the bill argued, that when great crimes were found to exist, without any known punishment being attached by law to their perpetration, then their lordships were bound to proceed by bills of pains and penalties, and he threw all manner of difficulties in the way of any other proceeding. He seemed to think that impeachment was a most objectionable course. That would have been very good advice for him to give to his employers: he might, with much propriety, have stated to them what measure he considered good, and what objectionable; but it was not quite so well for him to come down and tell this to their lordships, who were to be both jurors and judges. Such a proceeding took away all the security which an accused pen-on would derive from the forms of justice. A bill of pains and penalties dispensed with all those forms which were found so useful in other cases; and it was not sufficient, when those forms were taken away, to tell him that the substance of justice was preserved. On this occasion, he believed, it was always pretended that the substance of justice would be secured while its forms were set aside. This, however, was by no means a true statement of the case. Why had not lord Stratford been proceeded against by impeachment? Because it was found that if such a course were adopted no punishment could reach him. Therefore a bill of pains and penalties was introduced, which, he would maintain, was the foulest blot in the history of those times. He believed that the self-same motive which induced the parliament of that day to proceed by a bill of pains and penalties, now operated on the confidential advisers of
714
the Crown to proceed against the Queen in the same manner. They were asked, allowing the latitude which fairly belonged to the parliament, how they could proceed by impeachment, when the only punishment in that case, if guilt were proved, must be the punishment of death? but those who argued thus had strangely omitted the punishment of incapacity, which frequently followed impeachment; and they had also put out of sight disgrace and degradation, which must be considered a very severe punishment. When the learned counsel stated, that impeachment went to the infliction of imprisonment or death, he would say that degradation and incapacity were as completely within its scope, and formed a punishment which would naturally follow from conviction. He could wish, when their lordships were discussing the expediency and propriety of a bill of pains and penalties, that, sitting there as lords of parliament, they would look anxiously to the situation in which they might chance to be placed. In this instance, he conceived, their practice very much exceeded that of the House of Commons, in paying attention to the true principles of justice, with respect to evidence which their lordships had an opportunity of examining on oath. This was a peculiar distinction of their lordships' house. When they had a bill of pains and penalties before them, they called witnesses to their bar, whose testimony was given under the sanction of an oath; and thus it was the pride and glory of that House to pay a strict attention to the principles of justice on that point. Now, suppose they sent down a bill of pains and penalties to the House of Commons, after grave and mature deliberation, let their lordships consider the mortifying predicament in which they would be placed, if the other House rejected it; for, after all the anxious attention their lordships might have paid to the evidence, the other House might be led not to attend so much to that evidence as to the instructions of their constituents. In the other House the measure might be bandied and tossed about, and ultimately they might come to a different decision.
The learned counsel had observed, that their lordships would do their duty, at whatsoever risk it might be performed. He had no doubt that every noble lord would wish to do his duty in carrying the existing laws into execution, be the risk what it might: but did they not perceive

715
the wide distinction there was between carrying the laws of the land into execution, and that which might be incurred by making an entirely new law, on the spur of the occasion? When they were told that it was necessary to have recourse to a bill of pains and penalties, because no other mode, applicable to the case, was known, he would answer, that the matter should be considered with a view to the public benefit and the public safety only. Had any individual then, argued, that, under the present circumstances, they Ought to incur every possible risk, in order to form a new Jaw—an ex post facto law? No, as he had said before, quite a contrary feeling prevailed. It appeared to him to be a little short of insanity to carry a new species of law into execution, when the formation of that law had nothing to do with the public safety—when it was not called for by any apprehension of public danger. He was convinced that the public good and the public utility would be much better consulted by putting a stop to the proceeding at once, rather than blindly going on with it; and he did confidently ask of every man, who thought with him that there was more danger and disadvantage in proceeding—who believed that the public interest was more likely to suffer by going on with the bill than by stopping its progress—to vote with him on this occasion. There was no discredit in retracing their steps when they perceived they were in error; he saw no point of honour so false as that which impelled men, when they had once taken a particular path, to proceed in it, however improper it might be. He knew of no folly so great as persevering in a course which was plainly detrimental to the public interest. With these feelings he begged leave to move, That it is not necessary for the public safety, or the security of the government, that the bill intituled 'An act to deprive Her Majesty,' &c. should pass into a law."
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he rose at that early hour, as he was anxious to state the reasons which induced him to differ entirely from the noble lord, and why he should propose, as an amendment, that the counsel be directed to be called in. In stating the arguments which he had to offer on this subject he would endeavour to abstain from any observation of an inflammatory nature, for he was extremely desirous to treat this question in every stage of it, even in the present, as a purely
716
judicial question. He would now, as briefly and as clearly as he was able, lay down the grounds on which he differed from the noble lord, and show to the House that, under the circumstances in which they were placed, it was their lordships' duty to proceed with the bill. The motion of the noble lord might naturally be considered on two grounds, quite distinct in themselves:—first, whether there was any necessity or public utility in pursuing any measure against her majesty; and, secondly, if public utility required it, whether the present was the most proper course. These were the two considerations to which their minds would be directed in the present stage of the business, and he thought it the most proper and convenient to begin with the last. He would inquire, assuming that they were called on to proceed with some measure, whether this was the most expedient one, or whether it was of such a nature that it should be got rid of altogether. He was ready to admit the principle relative to bills of pains and penalties, as he understood it to have been laid down by the noble lord. The noble lord would, he conceived, agree with him, that extraordinary occasions might exist where bills of pains and penalties were absolutely necessary. Though the cases to which he alluded were of an extraordinary nature, still bills of pains and penalties, by which alone they could be met, must be looked upon as a part of the constitution of the country. Perhaps he might say, that such measures were exceptions to the general principles of the constitution; but, being rendered necessary by circumstances, they were recognised by it. He was quite willing to allow, that when a bill of this kind was brought forward, it was necessary for those who proposed it to show some special grounds on which it stood, and to prove that any other course was liable to strong objections.
Now, assuming the alleged crime to have been committed, he would inquire, what other course their lordships or the government could have adopted, save that which was now under consideration? From the opinion which had been delivered by the learned judges, it was quite clear that her majesty could not be indicted for high treason. He had no difficulty in saying (and there were those about him who knew his sentiments on the subject), that if indictment for high treason had been open to the government, that was the

717
course, and the only course, that he would have recommended for adoption; and it was only in consequence of the opinions, most numerous and most respectable—opinions, which had been stated over and over again—that he was induced to pursue the course on the propriety of which they were now to decide. But the question as to indictment for high treason had been completely set at rest. Whatever doubt had before existed, had been put an end to by the opinion of the judges. What other course, save that which they were now considering, could be resorted to after that solemn decision? There was but one other, that of impeachment; and he wished to call their lordships' attention to the view which he took of that course. He thought that, if impeachment, taking all the bearings of the case into consideration, was not impracticable, that it was yet liable to so many serious objections as rendered it a very inexpedient mode of proceeding. In his mind, all the objections which could be urged against a special law might with equal justice be applied to impeachment. The argument of the learned counsel, who had been heard against the bill, came to this—that every offence might be made the subject of impeachment. If that statement were good, de jure, as well as practically—if a proceeding by impeachment were open in every case where a public grievance existed, why was an exception made in favour of bills of pains and penalties, and bills of attainder? The reason of such an exception was obvious. It was simply this—because cases did occasionally arise, to which impeachment would not apply. That was the ground on which bills of pains and penalties, and of attainder, must either stand or fall. Then, assuming this crime to have been committed, it was evidently not high treason under the statute of Edward 3rd; and, in the next place, it was not a crime by the common law of this country, generally speaking. This he conceived to be a great defect in our laws. He saw a noble lord, who, he believed, when a member of the House of Commons, had given notice of a motion to amend the law of England on this point; and a noble friend had entertained the same intention, although he had not carried it into effect. It was a most extraordinary thing in the law of England, that that which was one of the greatest offences against the law of God, and one of the greatest crimes against the well-
718
being of society, was looked upon as a great civil injury, but was not cognizable by the criminal law of the land.
This was the state of the law at present. But it would be said that the offence in question was a sort of moral abuse, which, like all others contra bonos mores, might be made the subject of impeachment; and it was farther argued, that if cases of this nature could not be visited by the way of impeachment, it would go to narrow the rights and privileges of the two Houses of Parliament. No man was more inclined than he was to protect them in the exercise of their rights to the fullest possible extent, but he knew not how they could make that a subject of impeachment, which, by the law of England, was not a crime. He had heard it said, suppose any minister or public functionary whatsoever, at home or abroad, abused his trust, would not that be matter of impeachment? Most unquestionably it would; but would not such a functionary have been guilty of a crime? If any minister at home, or ambassador abroad, acted contrary to his duty, it was, by the law of England, a crime not only subject to impeachment, but to indictment. There were many cases in which indictment would not be the proper course of proceeding, on account of the difficulty of knowing how to-lay it; and in those cases impeachment was the only mode that could be successfully pursued. Therefore it was, that, in general, impeachment was the proper course by which political offences were punished. Those cases, however, differed entirely from the present, because the offence committed was clearly cognizable by the law. But in what situation would the high court of parliament be placed if the Commons came before them with an impeachment; and the question, whether, if adultery in this instance did not amount to high treason, could it be considered a. crime by the common law, were answered by those learned individuals in the negative? In such a case, even though they thought the proof was sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, they would be obliged to forego any further proceedings. Even allowing the argument on the other side; to be good, they could not make a proceeding by impeachment applicable to the present case. They might draw a distinction, and say. It is true, adultery in any ordinary woman is not criminal by the law of England; but the Queen is to be considered in a different light—she is a

719
public character, and has public duties to perform; therefore it may be a crime in her, though it would not be a crime in another woman. On this subject he should refer to the statute of Edward 3rd, and to the policy which governed the enactments of this country. Those enactments had declared, that adultery was an offence in the Queen, and certain other individuals; but in doing this they had made it a specific crime; they had made it high treason, and subjected the offender to all the penalties as well as advantages of the law of high treason. It was clear, then, that the legislature had decided this question. It was not a questio omissa; it was not that the case of the Queen had not been contemplated. The case of the Queen was distinctly pointed out, and a legislative authority was given for a particular mode of proceeding. Adultery on the part of the Queen was, under particular circumstances, made high treason; but in the absence of those circumstances, by the law of the land it was no crime at all. It was, however, said, that the privileges and prerogatives of the Queen placed her in a situation different from that of other females; but it should be observed, that the whole of the acts alleged in the preamble of the bill were done when her majesty was not Queen—when she was invested with no public character, and had no public duties to perform. The acts which were brought within the scope of this bill were done when she was princess of Wales, and not Queen; and therefore a new law was the more necessary. Supposing the Queen was impeached; supposing the case was made out, and that she was found guilty; how then were their lordships to deal with her? They could not go beyond the limits which belonged to the House in cases of impeachment. They might fine, imprison, banish, or degrade; but still he would state it as a matter of great doubt whether they could deprive her majesty of all her rights and privileges as Queen without a special act of parliament. They might banish or imprison her; but, looking to all the precedents, he did not think they could deprive her of her rights as Queen-consort.
If this argument were true, they would finally be brought back to all the objections that had been urged against bills of pains and penalties, and ex post facto laws; since they would be obliged to form a new measure, even in that case, which would be exposed to all the objections
720
alleged against such bills and such laws. The advantages of the present proceeding were evidently greater than any that could be derived from impeachment. See how the case stood. Information had been sent down by his majesty regarding the conduct of his Queen; it was referred to a secret committee, and that committee had reported in favour of a legislative proceeding. He admitted that this report was not binding, but it formed an ingredient in the case; but he had subsequently introduced the bill; it was read a first time, an order was made for the second reading, and counsel had been ordered to attend. How happened it, then, that this idea had never occurred before Many and great objections were taken; the appointment of the secret committee was resisted; and it was contended, that, whether the proceeding were by bill or by impeachment, it ought to be only on the responsibility of ministers. The bill having been read a first time, and the second stage fixed for the 17th of August, surely the House would require that it should be shown to be absolutely wrong, and some other course absolutely right, before it abandoned the course already adopted. Impeachment could commence only in the House of Commons; and if, six weeks ago, it had been found that that branch of the legislature was considering the propriety of impeaching, some reason might then have existed for the suggestion now made. At present, however, the House of Commons had shown a sort of acquiescence in this mode of proceeding; for, finding, on searching the Journals, that a bill was before the House of Lords, they had adjourned for a certain period. Yet now the House was advised to step out of its course for a new mode of proceeding, which it could not originate, and which the House of Commons had shown that it did not intend to commence. He maintained, therefore, that there were the greatest objections to impeachment: even if it were a balanced case, after all that had been done here and in the other House of Parliament, it was his conscientious opinion, that this House had but one line of conduct to pursue—to go on with the inquiry commenced with so much solemnity, and to bring the facts of the preamble to the test of proof. If not, the House could do nothing but at once declare that the investigation should be dropped altogether; for that must be the practical issue of the question. It might

721
be fit and proper to put a complete end to the proceeding, but he was quite certain that it ought not to be altered: he believed it was originally right, and he was sure that it was not so wrong as to make a change desirable.
He now came, then, to what in order of time ought, perhaps, first to have been considered—the expediency of supending this proceeding altogether. He had some time since stated the views of the king's government on this point: he had said that it was his opinion and theirs, that whatever difficulties attended the subject, as long as her majesty continued to reside abroad—not that there was no inconvenience in avoiding all proceedings, but that—comparing the advantages with the disadvantages, the inconvenience of taking any steps against her majesty far more than counterbalanced any good that could arise from them. The noble earl (Grey) certainly then seemed to entertain a different opinion: he had said, that assuming the matter of the report to be true, whether at home or abroad, it was the duty of the executive government to have brought the conduct of the Queen directly under the view of parliament. Such he had understood to be the opinion expressed by the noble earl.
Earl Greyrose to set the noble earl right. He had certainly said, that if the noble lords opposite were in possession of proofs against her majesty such as they declared that they had, and that no considerations of public expediency operated in a contrary direction, they ought, whether the Queen were at home or abroad, to have made up their minds to proceed. He had mentioned both propositions— the decisive nature of the evidence, and the question of public expediency—which might militate against its production. Ministers ought to have acted promptly in the first instance, either by bringing forward the charges, or by dropping them altogether.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad not so understood the opinion to be qualified; but in its present shape it much more met with his concurrence. Taking it for granted that what the noble earl now stated was correct, the noble earl would not dispute that he had followed it up by saying, that the accusation having been made, he did not see how it was possible to do otherwise than bring it to the test of proof. The noble earl asked, where was the difference between her majesty's being
722
abroad and at home? He (lord Liverpool) thought that there was all the difference in the world. While abroad she was not held forth to the people of the country as their Queen: she would not receive their homage, or enjoy all the privileges of royalty; while abroad matters might be overlooked, but when the Queen set foot in this country, there was no alternative; or rather there was but one alternative—to give her all respect, homage, and reverence as Queen, or to bring forward the accusation. He knew that in the other House of Parliament, and in a degree in this, and in the country at large, a strong desire was felt and expressed to avert the investigation: ministers had lent themselves to this desire, but always upon the principle, that if the inquiry were dropped her majesty's residence abroad was a sine qua non of all negotiation. Even if it were a common case of adultery, but much more if it were a case of the grossest kind, where the party accused had committed the offence in the face of the whole world, and appeared proud and anxious to manifest it in all parts of her conduct—he put it to every man of sense and feeling whether ministers could consent that a person so circumstanced should fill the high station of Queen, and enjoy all the rights and privileges belonging to her rank. He did not mean to say that suffering her to remain abroad, so circumstanced, was not a great evil, but it was an evil that might be submitted to; but if she had lived at home, having set at defiance all regard for morality, and the common decencies of life, it was an evil that, for the sake of the community at large, could not be endured.—Something had been said by the counsel at the bar on the subject of adultery committed by a man and by a woman. Undoubtedly in the eyes of God the crime was in both cases the same, bat their effects upon society and upon public decency were widely different; and this had not only been the opinion of mankind at all times, but their lordships, in their legislative capacity, always acted upon it. Divorce bills were constantly passed on the petition of a man, but never, excepting under especial circumstances, on the application of a woman. Yet adultery in men was by fur the most frequent: for one case of the commission of the crime in a woman, he believed nine instances existed of its commission by a man; and why was not the same remedy

723
applied? Merely because all were aware that there was no comparison as to the ill effects upon society in the one case and in the other. If there were one thing which more than another distinguished modern from ancient times, it was the different degree of reverence and respect paid to females, and this was mainly produced by the superior purity and virtue of the sex: those, therefore, who had established the doctrine regarding marriage and divorce now universally prevailing, instead of being the enemies of females, were, in truth, their best friends, patrons, and protectors, and most contributed to support that chastity which added so much to the attraction of personal charms.
If, then, the case against the Queen could be proved to be such as he had stated it, notwithstanding all clamour, which he did not despise—notwithstanding all difficulties, which he did not underrate—it was the duty of the House to go straight-forward to the conclusion of the course it had begun. He asserted, and he felt it strongly, that nothing that had passed, that no attempts to intimidate individual members, no attempts to overawe the whole legislature, no attempts to crush this great and momentous proceeding, ought to prevent the House from performing what it owed to the virtuous, the respectable, and the peaceable portion of the community. Those attempts, he knew, must have their indirect influence on the minds of men; but it was an influence they ought to expel, and to be governed only by a fearless sense of high and indispensable duty. Let him put the case in another point of view. The question was not now whether the ministers of the Crown, knowing all the facts, ought to bring them forward—not whether the accusation should be made: it had been made; it stood indelibly upon the preamble of the bill: nothing could blot it out—nothing prevent it from descending to posterity. Was it fitting, then, for her majesty's sake, that such a preamble should remain on the proceedings of parliament, without bringing it to the severe test of proof? Supposing the charge were at this moment dropped, he put it to their lordships, as men of feeling and honour, whether they could here after pay the Queen their homage and respect, with this uncontradicted preamble staring them in the face? Nothing could satisfy the House—nothing could satisfy the public mind—nothing ought to satisfy the
724
Queen but the production of the evidence, and the completion of the whole inquiry in an honest, straight forward, course.
One topic more, and he had done. Of course the counsel at the bar were bound to discharge what they thought their duty to their client, and to smother all subordinate considerations; and if, in the course of the speeches they had delivered, he had felt pain—not to say disgust—at some of the matter they had urged, he believed it was in common with the great majority of the House. They had adverted to the conduct of an illustrious personage (the duke of York) and they seemed to have thought that allusion necessary for the interests of their client; but if he (lord Liverpool) had been asked whether it was for the interest of their client to drag forward that long-forgot ten and unfortunate subject, he should have answered that the interest of their client was directly the reverse, (much cheering). He should say no more than this—they acted on their own discretion, they had an arduous task to execute, and what fell from them should be heard with every possible indulgence. They had also asserted, that the whole object of this bill was, that the illustrious personage filling the throne might be able to get rid of his wife, and marry again. He declared most solemnly before their lordships, that he believed that no such feeling had entered into the mind of his majesty. For himself, and for those who acted with him, he could assure the House, that that provision was a part of the bill to which the least value was attached. Undoubtedly it followed as a corollary to the rest of the measure—it was a fair and ordinary conclusion; but it was the least important part of it, and was very far from being its chief object and intention. The part to which he did attach importance was that which enacted that if a case were proved against the Queen she should no longer enjoy the rights and privileges of her station. He wished her not to be visited harshly—he wished the measure of punishment even to be as light as possible, and there were a thousand considerations which rendered it desirable that the facts should never be disclosed; but if what was charged against her was true, he never could reconcile to his mind that she should be his Queen. Having stated thus much with earnestness, but he hoped with temper and moderation, he should move, as an amendment, "That the counsel be called in."
Earl Greybegan by complimenting the noble earl who had just set down on his most fair and candid statement, and at the same time most powerful and eloquent appeal to the judgment and feelings of the House. He rose under all the impressions which a speech of such effect must naturally produce, and consequently with a disposition, before he entered upon topics where he wa3 unfortunately obliged to differ, to take advantage of those on which he could express his concurrence. He should set out, therefore, with stating, that if this bill were to pass into a law, and were ultimately to be considered the fit mode of proceeding on this great and unfortunate question, he agreed with the noble earl in thinking that the clause relating to the divorce was by far the least important part of it; he was also ready to receive the assurance that it was not deemed a main object in the illustrious quarter to which reference had been made. He thought, likewise, that if in consequence of the clear proof of the charges, it were necessary to proceed to the degradation of the Queen, the clause of divorce would follow, not as a measure of release to the King, but as a measure which the public interest made necessary to preserve the character and dignity of the throne. He could not reconcile it with any principle of propriety or justice, that if the Queen were degraded for such crimes, she should be left the wife of the king of Great Britain. He no less agreed with the noble earl (and he was anxious to state his concurrence) in the regret he had expressed, at the mention of topics by the counsel at the bar, who doubtless had felt the most painful necessity of introducing them. The object, no doubt, was, that they might operate favourably for their client; but, giving them full credit for their motives (as from his knowledge of them he was bound to do), he could not help thinking that they had been governed by a mistaken discretion, and that they would not only have better consulted their own feelings, but the advantage of the case they advocated, if they had abstained. To the illustrious person the object of their remarks he must pay that tribute which even the counsel could not withhold, and which the noble earl had repeated—a tribute to the high and meritorious services he had performed for the public, and which established an undoubted claim to the affection and confidence of the people.
726
Having disposed of these matters, he would now address himself to the bill upon the table. On its original introduction, and the motives leading to it, he wished on the present occasion to say as little as possible: on a previous occasion he had stated, some might think with too much asperity, his opinion on the conduct of ministers. Debating now a question which assumed a judicial character, he was desirous of abstaining from every thing that could awaken angry or party feelings, that the great subject might be discussed with that temper and calmness which alone could lead to a conclusion satisfactory to the public. He would only, therefore, in justice to himself restate that, in his original objection to the conduct of ministers, he had taken both views of the question—not only the magnitude of the offence imputed, but the expediency of bringing it forward. It was the duty of ministers to have made up their minds, and to have acted firmly and definitively; and, without reviving topics already dismissed, he must say, that he could not yet see the distinction drawn by the noble earl between the residence of the Queen abroad or at home. If he looked back to the matters connected with this point, he must recur to that act of real degradation, not more unfortunate than unjust, which operated as an infliction of punishment without charge or investigation—the leaving of her majesty's name out of the Liturgy. Let it be recollected that that unhappy circumstance had led to the return of the Queen, and the impossibility of repairing that fatal error occasioned the failure of the negotiation. When she arrived, he had admitted that the noble earl was placed under the necessity of making his choice between a complete acknowledgment of the Queen, with all her rights and privileges, or the institution of a charge to justify him in refusing it. He could not concede to the noble earl the distinction he had taken, nor think that the interests of the people of England were consulted in the offer to enable her majesty to continue her licentious course upon a more splendid scale, and to make herself a degrading exhibition in the eyes of the whole continent of Europe. When the noble earl, therefore, talked of a choice of evils, surely that evil would have been as great as the insertion of her name in the Liturgy-, the omission of which had reduced the House to its present extremity.

727
He now came to that consideration—undoubtedly at the present moment most important to be decided,—namely, whether a charge having been preferred, the present mode of substantiating and proceeding upon it was the only one which ought to be pursued, or whether any other course were open for which the bill upon the table ought to be abandoned? That, in fact, was the real question now before the House; and in the outset he must state, that he was well aware that any thing he should propose must be liable to great objections. But the House was unfortunately placed in a situation where no mode of proceeding could be pointed out that was unattended with most serious difficulties and embarrassments. The learned counsel at the bar had exhibited a power of reasoning and eloquence never surpassed; and though they had not perhaps suggested to his mind any points absolutely new, yet they had presented the difficulties with such accumulated force, that he had felt almost overpowered by it; all led to the practical result, that it was better to get rid of this proceeding, so pregnant with many evils. He was not prepared to adopt that recommendation, or to suggest that the House should resign its high character and station in the country as a deliberative body by yielding to popular clamour. The vote he had given two days ago had cost him much pain—a degree of pain he had never perhaps experienced before; it was apparently in favour of this measure, and in opposition to the opinions of many persons to whom he was politically united, as well as engaged by the nearest ties of perfect confidence and unrestrained friendship. But he had been placed in a situation where he was determined to do his duty, at the expense of all personal feelings; he felt that he had no option, and acted accordingly. What had then been proposed?—To rescind a course of proceeding after a Letter had been published of such a nature as to warrant the supposition, if the House decided in the affirmative, that it was yielding to the threat of open and public violence. That letter was not the immediate subject of discussion; but he must say, that whoever advised her majesty to write or to set her hand to that letter, and to make that appeal to the worst passions of the people against the decision of this the highest court of the empire, advised her to take a step raising a presumption by no means favourable to
728
her innocence, and ill-calculated to produce any advantageous effect on the councils or determination of the House of Lords [Great cheering]. Under those circumstances he had given the vote to which he referred, and he had besides interposed a motion for putting a question to the judges as to the quality of the offence under the statute of Edward the 3rd. He agreed that the opinion of those learned individuals had so far settled that question. It was admitted on all hands that the law was clear as to the offence committed in England; but he had been fully justified in the course he had taken, and in procuring the final decision of the judges, because the House had previously been told by the highest legal authority it possessed, that he had considerable doubts upon the subject. He was rather inclined to wish that he had put his questions separately to the judges; for their separate and distinct answers would have been given, and the points would each have been settled in all times to come, and the decision perhaps have led the way to some new law upon the subject. Hitherto the difficulty had never arisen since the passing of the statute; one construction had uniformly been put upon it, and it still remained the same, with this difference, that the authorities he had named had given their construction of one particular part of it.
It was quite clear, then; according to the opinion of the judges, that an offence of this kind committed abroad with a foreigner owing no allegiance to the Crown of Great-Britain could not be prosecuted as high-treason. He had, of course, not the presumption to set his judgment in opposition to that of the bench of judges; but conviction was not a matter in a man's own power, and he was not yet satisfied that the view he had taken of one part of the subject was completely erroneous. One doubt that still remained in his mind was this—whether, supposing the offence had been committed in England with a person not responsible to the law—with a lunatic, for instance—on the principle of that decision it would be an offence within the statute of Edward the 3rd; but, passing over this question, it next came to be considered, whether, as treason was out of the question, this bill of Pains and Penalties was the only remaining mode of proceeding. He contended that a bill of pains

729
and penalties was an exception to the general rule of the constitution giving parliament extraordinary powers; which powers, however, it ought to possess for the public safety in cases of emergency, and where a special necessity was clearly established. He had been supposed to have stated this point too strongly before; but the more he had read and reflected upon it, the more convinced was he, even while he admitted their necessity and expediency at particular times, that all the recorded instances of their adoption showed that they were rather beacons to be shunned than examples to be followed. Such a measure could only have his acquiescence on distinct proof of the necessity, and that proof extending even to the establishment that no other mode could be discovered. The only other mode that had been mentioned was by impeachment, which the noble earl had contended was inapplicable to this case; he had gone the whole length of asserting, that an impeachment by the House of Commons would not reach this case. He (earl Grey) had attended with all possible diligence to the arguments of counsel upon this question, and in the opinion he had previously held he was not more confirmed by the powerful arguments of the advocates for the Queen, than by the admissions and doubts of the attorney and solicitor-general. He was satisfied that an impeachment would lie, and must therefore totally dissent from some of the principles laid down by the noble earl in reference to it. He could not concur that impeachment could only be resorted to for crimes known to the law, or for the misconduct of some high public functionary. The reverse, in his judgment, was the fact. He could by no means admit that the impeachment must relate to some crime already made punishable by statute, nor that, if otherwise, it must be confined to some officer engaged in the public service. Those conditions were not necessary; and many cases of impeachment might be stated, where the crimes charged were not known to the law of England. Many political offences must necessarily be unknown to the law; and though, in the proceedings on the treaty of Utrecht, many matters of accusation would have come within the known laws of the realm, yet there were other articles showing that parliament proceeded against the parties for what did not come within any known law,
730
written or understood. There were some instances of a remarkable nature connected with the transactions of that time, and one in particular, the case of lord Haversham, in 1701. He was proceeded against, not for any offence known to the law, but committed in parliament; he was impeached "for words spoken this day at a free conference; and that the Lords be desired" (such were the words of the resolution) "to proceed in justice against the said lord, and to inflict the punishment so high an offence deserves." The Lords also came to a resolution upon it in these terms:—"Resolved, that unless the said charge shall be prosecuted against the said lord Haversham with effect by the Commons before the end of this session of parliament, the Lords will declare and adjudge him wholly innocent of the said charge." Their lordships had therefore, upon their books, a case which proved that the House of Lords recognised the right of the House of Commons to impeach for such an offence. Therefore the principle contended for by the noble earl, and which he would extend to the present case, could not be sustained. The noble earl had proceeded to refer to a case which occurred in Ireland; but of this, as his memory did not exactly retain it at present, he would suspend the consideration to a future opportunity. Another case was a proceeding against the bishop of Exeter; and he should therefore say, that both precedent and authority tended to prove that the principle of impeachment was so extensive as to reach offences which were no offences at common law, and crimes which were not known either to the state or to the common law, and that would not come under the description even of moral offences, as affecting society; but which, as affecting public interests, and the protection of the general welfare, parliament had asserted to be within its peculiar cognisance and power, for the benefit of those whom it was its highest duty to protect against all wrong.
But supposing the principle which had been stated by the noble earl to be established, he denied that it would serve him upon the present occasion. Did he understand that noble earl to say, that the offence of the Queen, if proved, was no crime against the laws of England? Did be understand him

731
to maintain that adultery was no crime by those laws? If the noble earl had said so, his lordship and himself were completely at issue on the subject; for he must contend that it was such a crime. It was a crime at civil law, which constituted a part of the law of England, and it might be proceeded for in a spiritual court. Mr. Justice Black-stone defined it to he a public crime, that must be so proceeded for; because being a public crime, there was therefore no action for damages. Not only in the preamble of this bill was adultery charged, which, as he had observed, was a crime by the laws of England—(and he would ask the noble lord on the woolsack whether he agreed with the noble earl in thinking otherwise?) not only was adultery direclly charged, but it went on to allege against her majesty's scandalous and licentious conduct. Now he would ask his noble friend behind him (lord Erskine), he would ask the noble lord on the woolsack, and other lords, and he would put the same question to the learned judges, whether gross, infamous, and scandalous conduct, was not a crime also by the English laws, and subject to the penalty of fine and imprisonment? He said, then, that adultery was a crime of this description—that, in the first place, it was known to our laws, and punishable by a proceeding in the spiritual courts, independent of a suit for separation a mensa el thoro: and, in the second place, he maintained, that conduct highly immoral and grossly licentious was a crime also known to those laws, and which might be punished by fine and imprisonment. He assumed, therefore, that they were crimes of which the laws of this kingdom were cognizant. But then the noble earl took this distinction—"they were not (in this instance) committed in it." Why this was the very 'case, then, that should bring them within the jurisdiction of parliament. Would he (earl of Liverpool), who maintained that this was not a proper case for any proceeding which might be appealed to parliament, contend, that if a public functionary for instance, or other person, had committed some crime abroad, the commission of which incurred this consequence, that it produced great scandal and dishonour to his majesty's throne and kingdom—(and because the crime had been committed abroad, it not being possible to prosecute such public functionary at home by any
732
ordinary course of law)—would he contend that his crime would not come within the scope of parliamentary impeachment, and be that upon which their lordships would be called on to decide? Why this, he thought, was a case which could not admit of any doubt or hesitation, and impeachments of this sort had occurred. Their lordships would remember that that of Mr. Warren Hastings for the Mahratta war went upon the same principle; he was proceeded against as a public functionary. The rule universally was, that if a public functionary committed a crime, which, however, was not against the common laws, although against the public interests, parliament was charged with the protection of those public interests; parliament was vested with the power to protect them; and, when they were called into question, parliament had a right to protect them. Lord Coke had been yesterday quoted for the purpose of showing the extent of the powers of parliament; and it was affirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries, that its great power was expressly given to it, in order to carry into effect the due punishment of offences which ordinary magistrates dared not, or could not, punish. He (earl Grey) said, that this was an offence which ordinary magistrates dared not, and could not, punish: but being an offence and a crime deeply injurious in its consequences to the public interests, it was within the power of parliament, and just within those cases in which its power of impeachment could be properly exerted, and for which it was expressly given by the constitution of the country.
He contended that this was a case in which an impeachment would lie: but the noble earl took another distinction. He admitted that the Queen, invested with the rights and privileges of her exalted station, was to be considered as a public functionary, and that an offence committed by her was, in that point of view, cognizable by impeachment; but, said the noble earl, "this offence was committed before she was Queen." To this, his first answer he had already given—that this being a crime known to the laws, it was of no public consequence whether she were to be considered in the light of a public functionary or not; she might be proceeded against by impeachment: and as to its having been committed when she was only Princess of Wales, the power of

733
impeachment should in this case be exercised upon the principles he had already stated. When the noble earl said, that this could not be done because the offence occurred before she was Queen, that was rather an unfair observation, because at one time this offence was adverted to by the noble earl, in connexion with the high station which her majesty occupied as Queen of England, and upon another he agreed on it because it had been committed when she was not Queen.
He came now to consider what would be the consequence of their lordships adopting the measure of an impeachment. The noble earl had observed, that even were they to proceed by impeachment, there were no means of punishment applicable to the case; it would afford none that their lordships would consider to be applicable; and he had proceeded to infer from the case of lord Strangford, which he had quoted, that "degradation" was not within the power of the House of Lords, as a judicial assembly.
The Earl of Liverpoolexplained. He doubted whether a sentence of the House would have that effect, except it were followed by some special act of parliament.
Earl Grey, in continuation, said, that the noble earl had enumerated a variety of cases in which degradation had been decreed by that House; and that their abridgment was almost enough for the case of his (earl Grey's) argument. His lordship had referred to the case of lord Strangford expressly to show, as he understood it, that upon an occasion when the House of Lords wished to inflict degradation, the House of Lords in Ireland found it necessary to resort to a bill of pains and penalties, and not to an impeachment. But he thought he could show the noble earl, that they had other reasons for that course, and did not think that a sentence of degradation could only be effected by a bill of pains and penalties. In that particular case, their lordships would recollect that the offence charged was committed by him in the House of Lords, in his capacity of a peer of parliament. Now he did not know, in such an instance, how evidence could well be given before the House of Commons: such offence having been committed by him as a peer of parliament, and in the exercise of his parliamentary duties, it was fair to suppose that an argument might arise' in the House of Commons upon the inquiry, the
734
result of which might not be a bill of Pains and Penalties. As to what the noble earl had inferred from lord Strangford's case, surely he must recollect that the great lord Bacon, under a sentence of that House, after his impeachment, was incapacitated from sitting or voting there, or coming within its verge. His crime was the same as that charged upon lord Strangford: and the noble earl must also remember, that Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, was subjected to the same sort of degradation. On these grounds he maintained that the object of the bill before them might be attained under a judicial sentence of their House, and in a far better way.
The noble earl then went on to express his conviction that the course he recommended would be liable to infinitely less-objection than that upon which their lordships were called on to engage, and be much more satisfactory to the public: it would be far better, after they had entered upon a solemn judicial inquiry, such as would ensue upon an impeachment—after they had heard the evidence produced, and examined witnesses on both sides according to the forms of that House—to bring in a bill founded upon such regular and solemn proceedings, than to go on with that which was now submitted to them. When he spoke of public satisfaction, he must again urge them to resist, and to be unmoved by popular clamour, but they must guard themselves-against being deceived upon one important point; it might be productive of the hightest evil to the country, if their lordships allowed themselves to think that the feeling which prevailed among men, against the bill upon their lordships table, was limited to the lower orders of the population. So far from it, he spoke advisedly when he said, that the feeling against the bill of Pains and Penalties, in this business, was one almost as universal as the air. It was not confined to the lower orders, but it was the common and equal sentiment of almost every family and every individual of the community. Let them never give way to popular clamour, but let their lordships endeavour to retain that hold upon the affections of the people which it was absolutely necessary for them to do, in order to discharge those high and sacred duties with which they were intrusted. This bill of Pains and Penalties he considered to be so objectionable upon public principles —and

735
even the noble earl himself admitted it to be so objectionable upon many weighty grounds of difficulty—that it was not a proceeding proper to be resorted to. But a parliamentary impeachment would lie upon this occasion. That question having been determined, and proceeded in, the consequence would be, that their lordships might then determine upon the other—whether or no, under all the circumstances of the case, her majesty should be admitted to all those dignities, rights, and privileges, applying to the consort of the Crown of England? The noble earl again had stated, that even should they proceed by impeachment, that would be a course fraught with great inconvenience. Inconveniences, he must admit, there might be in it; but that consideration would not, he hoped, under the circumstances he had mentioned, deter their lordships from the proceeding. There were strong motives for it, upon principles of public policy and political justice. He had already told them that the general feeling of the public was eager, vehement, and universal against the mode proposed by the noble earl: and that it was a mode in every way liable to great objections. He would wish their lordships to consider, whether, instead of persevering in one so viewed by the public—one, of which they themselves had a distrust even at the very moment of acting upon it—it would not be better to abandon it, and to adopt some measure less liable to objection, and not surrounded by all those dangers that were to be apprehended from this proceeding under present circumstances? He would desire noble lords to consider what must be the consequences of the course which they were pursuing; and he would represent to them that the consequences of the House of Commons refusing to adopt an impeachment, such as he would recommend to them, would be of infinitely less importance and danger than those which he feared would follow from their persevering in the present measure. The noble earl had said, that whatever the errors might be which had been committed—whatever the mistakes or misconceptions of those who had framed the bill: yet that there their lordships were now, with the charge recorded upon their Journals, and there it must remain recorded to all posterity as a charge against the Queen, which, if proved, must make her an object of punishment and degradation. All this he admitted; but he had before
736
admitted that there was no course which was not subject to inconvenience. If the House of Commons should refuse the impeachment, and this recorded bill should still remain, then they would be placed under a most peculiar difficulty, indeed, in considering what should be done with the Queen, against whom this charge had been so recorded, and against whom the House of Commons refused to proceed in the way he had been proposing, and which he considered the only proper one. That would certainly be a great inconvenience; it was one which they could not look at but with great pain; but it was one, also, which could not be avoided. But he wished the noble earl to consider the other side of his proposition. The noble earl had been betrayed, perhaps, into some little latitude as they were all likely to be, upon a subject of this kind, in what he had stated with respect to the proceedings in this matter in the House of Commons. Though it might be true that the House of Commons had abandoned their mode of proceeding in consequence of the adoption of a bill of pains and penalties in that House, he did not think the inference which the noble earl drew from this fact to be a correct one—namely, that the impeachment of the Queen was considered unadvisable, or that from its not having been adopted in the House of Commons, it was not a course which might be adopted by their lordships. If he knew any thing of the history of those proceedings, the noble lord who proposed their suspension in another place, expressly declared, that he wished them to stand so, in order to see what course the House of Lords might take in the business: in order, that if their lordships did not proceed, the House of Commons might, or might not, by virtue of the powers which it possessed. Why then might not the House of Commons eventually adopt that which he maintained to be the most proper and constitutional course—namely, a proceeding by impeachment? That it was the most constitutional course could not be doubted. In that case the House of Commons would be in the place of a grand jury, which a secret committee of their lordships had been most falsely and erroneously defined to be. The House of Commons, as the most popular branch of the legislature, was vested with powers to put certain matters in a train of judicial inquiry before that House, which was the highest

737
court of judicature in the kingdom. Supposing that the House of Commons, as grand jurors of the kingdom, should find a bill against the Queen, and present it at that bar.—Their lordships would then have to act in their judicial capacity, which her majesty's able counsel had stated they should infinitely prefer; but no proceeding, he thought, wherein their lordships acted partly in their judicial, and partly in their legislative capacity, could have the same desirable effect, or be equally satisfactory, with one wherein they should sit as judges in a court of judicature. But supposing that the proceeding were to come there from the other House, and as a motion of impeachment. What inconvenience in the case of their lordships refusal to concur with it, would follow? No more than every day day arose upon the findings of grand juries. Grand juries every day, found bills upon ex parte evidence, their determinations upon which were reversed by the courts of justice, who had an opportunity of proceeding upon better grounds, and investigating the whole evidence. All the information which belonged to those courts, besides that submitted to the jury which has found, and the power of examining upon oath, continually produced a contrary verdict or finding to that of a grand jury. The same might be the case here: and if so, what prejudice ensued? None. The House of Peers having this superior power of examining upon oath—having upon its benches persons of the highest legal knowledge, and being assisted by the learned judges themselves—would be enabled to form a more correct judgment on the case, and to take a view of it which the more limited forms of the House of Commons, and even its very constitution, did not admit of. But supposing that their lordships confirmed the decision of the other House; then, he asked, whether a proceeding so coming there, and being fully investigated, with all the forms and solemnities which belonged to their lordships proceedings, would not be infinitely more satisfactory to the public, than that which they were now called upon to support?
He had now stated the advantages of proceeding in the way he proposed. He admitted, at the same time, the inconvenience to be feared in the possibility (on the other hand) of the House of Commons refusing to proceed with the charge against the Queen. But let their lord-
738
ships seriously contrast that inconvenience, with the appalling inconvenience which might result (and who would say that such a result was not possible?) if, after their lordships sitting there, examining witnesses upon oath, hearing counsel and observing (while acting, as he had said, both in their judicial and their legislative capacity) all the solemnities of that high court of judicature, they should pass a bill of degradation against the Queen; and that afterwards, being under the influence perhaps of popular clamour, or actuated by different motives, the House of Commons should throw out the bill What, then, would be the difficulty in which they would be involved? Every one would be alarmed and terrified at the charge against the Queen, thus recorded in a bill which had never passed. Not only would not that charge be further proceeded in, but the case would be, that after that solemn charge and condemnation had passed their lordships, and been sent down to the House of Commons, that bill would remain recorded, which, after charging the Queen with all these crimes, and expressing the opinion of the House of Lords that a sentence of degradation should pass against her, had been thrown out of the House of Commons. Could their lordships tell him, in such a case, what they would do? Could they tell him, in this tremendous difficulty, how they would act? He had urged to them what was the public opinion, and what the universal feeling upon the bill on their table. Their lordships were judges in the last resort, and they were going to make themselves judges in the first. They were about to meet that fearful difficulty which he had been supposing. He deeply lamented that the proceeding had ever been originally proposed in this manner. And here he must state (and that in a manner which might give offence to some) what would be the character of that House with the country, in consequence of its having adopted the measure of a secret committee, after the House of Commons bad refused to do so. He was afraid that the prediction which he had formerly ventured to make, as to the character of their lordships House, would be too speedily verified. Their path was strewed with difficulties upon whatever spot they put their feet. But let them, if possible, avert the calamitous consequences of entering upon a measure the dangers of which were inevitable. After the motion of the

739
noble lord had been disposed of, and the question upon the motion of the noble earl should have been put, "That counsel be called in," against which he should certainly vote, he hoped that their lord, ships would allow him to submit for their consideration another motion, which he trusted might lead to another and much better course of proceeding. If it should afterwards appear, that there was a refusal on the part of the House of Commons, to adopt such a measure, his proposition, he thought would entail upon their lordships much less danger and inconvenience than that which would arise from persevering in the present proceeding. He should therefore move, after the motion of the noble earl had been disposed of, That the bill entitled a bill of Pains and Penalties for the purpose for degrading her majesty the Queen, does not afford the most advisable mode for prosecuting the charges which have been brought against her majesty; and that it is not under the present circumstances, necessary or expedient to proceed further in the same for that purpose."
The Lord Chancellor proceeded to put the original question, and then the amendment of lord Liverpool, "that counsel be called in;" upon which latter their lordships finally divided: Contents, 181; Not Contents, 65: Majority, 116. On our re-admission into the House,
Lord Calthorpewas speaking against the motion for calling in counsel. He begged their lordships to reflect how responsible parliament was for allowing a person of her Majesty's high rank to go abroad. By this step they removed the influence of public opinion, which was a great check on female conduct; and their lordships, by acquiescing in her leaving the country, submitted to the necessity of proving such charges as the present by the testimony of foreigners. He did not consider this a bar to all proceedings, for, after the report which the secret committee had submitted to the House, he thought the moral welfare of the state imperiously called for an inquiry; but he thought it advisable, that some expedient should be adopted that would put a stop to this particular bill, and at the same time pledge the House to pursue any other course of proceeding that the circumstances of the case might demand. Another point was, the difficulty that might arise from the other House of parliament rejecting the bill in its present
740
form. If, therefore, there was any inconsistency in now stopping the bill, it ought to be submitted to in order to avoid the more serious dilemma in which they would be placed if the bill, after being passed in its present form by their lordships, should be rejected by the House of Commons. In proposing some further bar to the present proceeding, their lordships were not to suppose that he was influenced by popular clamours, for his opinion was, that they should act as if those clamours did not exist. He could not sit down without expressing his sincere regret that her majesty, before the report of the committee was made, had not been advised to accept those terms which were offered by his majesty's government in the course of the negotiations; and also that she had been advised to repel the wishes of a large majority of the House of Commons; because he was convinced, that those resolutions expressed the wishes of the well-disposed and well-affected in the country. He concluded by imploring the House to pause at this last stage at which a pause was practicable, and to consider whether it was not possible to suggest some other course, either by impeachment or otherwise, that should supersede the present mode of proceeding, and be more conformable to those institutes of justice by which their lordships' judicial conduct was usually regulated.
The Lord Chancellor now called upon earl Grey for his resolution, which the noble earl handed in. It was as follows: "That it appears that the bill now before the House does not afford the most advisable mode for prosecuting the charges against her majesty, and that therefore, under the present circumstances, it is not necessary or expedient to proceed farther with it." This resolution was put as an amendment to the motion of the earl of Liverpool, "That counsel be called in," and was negatived by a division, as follows: Contents, 64; Not-contents, 179: Majority, 115.

List of the Minority on the first Divison.

Duke of Glocester

Marq. Lansdown

Somerset

Downshire

Grafton

Earl of Derby

St. Alban's

Suffolk

Bedford

Denbigh

Devonshire

Thanet

Portland

Essex

Hamilton

Albemarle

Argyll

Jersey

Leinster.

Oxford

741

Cowper

Duncan

Stanhope

Clifden

Fitzwilliam

Downe

Hardwicke

Lord Dacre

Darlington

Save &c Sele

Ilchester

King

Waldegrave

Sondes

Grosvenor

Holland

Fortescue

Ducie

Carnarvon

Hawke

Rosslyn

Foley

Romney

Sherborne

Grey

Kenyon

Minto

Auckland

Breadalbane

Dundas

Rosebery

Yarborough

Besborough

Calthorpe

Darnley

Gwydir

Blesinton

Alvanley

Visc. Bolingbroke

Erskine

Torrington

Prudhoe

Hood

Belhaven

Anson

On the second division, upon earl Grey's amendment, the earl of Guilford voted for it; lord Calthorpe voted against it.

OPENING OF THE CHARGES.
The Counsel for and against the Bill were then called in; and the Attorney General was informed by the Lord Chancellor that he might proceed to open his case.
Mr. Attorney-Generaladdressed their lordships as follows:—My lords; In obedience to your lordships' order, I now attend at your bar to fulfil the duty which your commands have cast upon me, of stating to your lordships the circumstances to be adduced in evidence in support of the charges contained in the preamble of the bill now under your lordships consideration. A duty, my lords, more painful or more anxious I believe was never cast upon any individual than that which I have now to perform. I have, my lords, to state to your lordships the circumstances which are to be adduced in evidence at your lordships bar, in support of the serious and heavy charges which are made in the preamble to the bill now under your lordships' consideration against the highest subject of this country—charges which not only reflect the greatest scandal and dishonour upon the individual against whom they are made, but also reflect great dishonour upon the country itself—the highest individual a subject in the country is charged with one of the most serious offences both against the laws of God and of man—that of an adulterous intercourse,
742
carried on under circumstances of the greatest aggravation.
My lords; upon the nature of this charge-—upon the importance of this investigation—it is quite unnecessary for me to enlarge. Your lordships, and every individual in the country, must be sensible of them. The only consolation I derive under the discharge of the duty which I have now to fulfil is this—that it calls upon me not to address your lordships' passions or your feelings upon the present occasion, but that I am sure I shall best discharge it according to your lordships' commands by abstaining from any observations which might tend to aggravate the charges made against the illustrious person, and by confining myself, in this stage of the proceedings, to a clear, simple, but full recital of the facts which are to be alleged in evidence.
My lords; we are now arrived at that period of these proceedings in which silence can no longer be preserved. It is now necessary that the charge, in its fullest extent, should be laid before your lordships and the public; and if, in the recital of the circumstances which I have to detail, I shall be under the painful necessity of bringing before your lordships scenes which must disgust every well-regulated mind—transactions which must offend the feelings of every honourable and virtuous person—I am sure your lordships will think that upon this occasion I ought to hold no reserve; at the same time taking care—as I assure your lordships I shall most conscientiously do—to state nothing which, in my conscience, I do not believe I shall be able to substantiate in proof; but to withhold no circumstance from your lordships upon which I have the same conviction. I shall, therefore, my lords, without further preface, state to your lordships, as generally and as succinctly as I am able, the painful narrative of those facts and those circumstances which are to be adduced in proof at your lordships' bar. My lords; undoubtedly that recital must include a considerable space of time, and apply to facts which took place at various places which her majesty visited during her residence abroad. I shall therefore commence my statement at the period at which the evidence adduced at your lordships bar will commence in point of proof, and proceed as well as I am able, through the detail of the various facts and circumstances which took place from that period until almost

743
the time at which I have now the honour of addressing your lordships.
My lords; it is well known to your lordships and to the country, that in the year 1814? her majesty, for reasons operating upon her own mind, and not by compulsion, as has been insinuated at your lordships' bar, thought fit to withdraw from this country for a period——
Mr. Brougham. Persuasion, not compulsion.
Mr. Attorney General. I am sure that my learned friends do not desire to embarrass me; I know them too well: but observations made in a tone of voice to be heard are apt to embarrass one. But appearing before so public an assembly, and with the public expectation, and with the consciousness of my inability to do justice to the trust your lordships have cast upon me, I am sure I shall receive your lordships' indulgence for that embarrassment which no man, even of stronger nerves and greater power than myself, would be able to counteract.
Mr. Brougham. My lords; I am sure I did not mean to embarrass my learned friend: I am the last man to do it: but I am sure your lordships will permit—[Order, order!] In every court it is allowed.— [Order, order!]
Lord Chancellor.Go on.
Mr. Attorney General.I am sure my learned friend will not believe that I alluded to him with any idea that he meant to embarrass me. I was stating, that in the year 1814 her majesty left this country for the purpose of travelling on the continent, and of visiting other countries that she had a desire to visit. She went, in the first instance, to her native country, Brunswick, and from thence, after a short interval, proceeded to Italy, and arrived at Milan I think about the 9th of October 1814. My lords; her majesty, when she quitted this country, quitted it with attendants, and with persons about her princely person—she being at that time Princess of Wales—suitable to her rank, and moving in that exalted station which one would naturally expect would be the case with persons whom she selected for her immediate attendants. She was accompanied, as might naturally be expected from an English princess, by very distinguished females of the country in which she enjoyed that high rank. Her establishment at that time consisted of two ladies of great rank—lady Charlotte Lindsay and lady Elizabeth Forbes, who
744
were her maids of honour. She was accompanied by Mr. St. Leger as her chamberlain, and by sir William Gell and the hon. Keppel Craven; who also, I believe, officiated in a similar character as her majesty's chamberlain; by captain Hesse her equerry, by Dr. Holland her physician, and by other persons in the more humble situations in her majesty's suite, whose names it is unnecessary for me to enumerate to your lordships at this period of my statement. With this suite, and thus attended she arrived at Milan. Her intention was to proceed from thence to other parts of Italy, and to visit Naples. She remained at Milan for the space of about three weeks, and during that period a person was received into her service whose name occurs in the preamble to this bill; and, my lords, whose name will frequently occur in the course of these proceedings—a person of the name of Bergami, who was taken into her service as a courier, and also to officiate in the character of a footman or valet de chambre. My lords; this person was at that time in want of employment; but he had been serving in a similar car pacity with a person, a general Pino, who was an Italian, and with whom I believe Bergami had, for some time, lived; but at the period to which I am now calling your lordships' attention, this person being in want of a situation, was, I believe, recommended to her majesty's service, and was received into her majesty's service in the character and capacity I have stated to your lordships. I need hardly remark to your lordships, that in that situation in her majesty's service, the distance which was interposed between the courier and her majesty was such, that in the natural course of life of such a high personage, the communication between her majesty and her courier must have been extremely rare and infrequent, and of course the distance interposed between them was such, that no familiar intercourse could—at least in an early stage of the service—take place under ordinary circumstances.
My lords; with the suite I have described to your lordships, composed of English ladies of high rank, and other persons whose names I have enumerated to your lordships, her majesty set out from Milan within a fortnight after this person, Bergami, was hired into her service—certainly not above fourteen or fifteen days. She proceeded from Milan to

745
Rome and from Rome to Naples, where she arrived on the 8th of November 1814. Your lordships, therefore, will perceive, from the dates which I have stated, that at the period of her majesty's arrival at Naples, this person in this situation, who had travelled as her courier through the whole course of this journey, had not been in her majesty's service more than three weeks. I beg your lordships attention to this circumstance, because your lordships will find how material it is when you come to attend to the facts which I shall have presently the melancholy duty to relate to your lordships.—I should have stated, that besides the persons who accompanied her majesty, and whom I have mentioned to your lordships, was a lad whose name is probably known to most of your lordships, William Austin—a boy at that time—upon whom her majesty bestowed particular attention. She appeared very much attached to him, and being a boy at the time I believe of six or seven years of age, he had been in the habit, from the time of her majesty's departure from England until her arrival at Naples, of sleeping in a bed in the same room with her majesty. My lords; the arrangement of the rooms and apartments of her majesty, at the different places at which she arrived devolved upon her servants, whose duty it was, to take care of that arrangement; and previously to her arrival at Naples, a private house having been taken for her majesty, that arrangement was made which had been previously made, placing the menial domestics, and Bergami the courier among the rest, in one part of the house, at a distance from that which her majesty herself occupied—rooms of course appropriated to her majesty, and one appropriated to her as her bed-room, in which room, as I have stated to your lordships, it was expected that this boy would continue to sleep as usual. On the first night of her arrival, November the 8th, to which I have called your lordships' attention, that arrangement continued. Bergami slept in that part of the house appropriated to the domestics of her majesty, in another part of the house; but, upon the following morning, November the 9th, the servants of the establishment learned with some surprise (because no reason appeared to them at the time for the change) that Bergami was no longer to sleep in that part of the house where he had slept on the night preced-
746
ing, but that a room very near to that in which her majesty herself slept, and which had a free communication with it by means of a corridor or passage between the room in which she slept, and this room which was appropriated to this person, had been, at her majesty's express desire, appropriated to this courier Bergami. My lords; I need not state to your lordships that such a fact naturally excited the surprise of those whose duty it was to attend near her majesty's person; and that surprise was not a little increased when they learned from her majesty that it was no longer her pleasure that the boy William Austin should continue to sleep in her room. She assigned undoubtedly as a reason, that which was a very proper reason, if that had been the only motive for the change, namely, that he was now arrived at that age in which it became no longer proper that he should sleep in her room, and that therefore another apartment should be provided for him, and that the practice which, up to that time, had been continued should cease.
My lords; the arrangement was accordingly made. The bed-room which I have stated to your lordships as having a very direct communication—a free communication—with her majesty's, was assigned to the courier; and, my lords, upon the evening of the 9th of November I think your lordships will believe, from the facts which I am about to relate to you, that that intercourse commenced which is charged in the preamble of the present bill, and continued from that time during the continuance of that person in her service. My lords; upon the evening of the 9th of November her majesty went to the opera at Naples; but it was observed that she returned at a very early hour. One of her maid servants who attended particularly to her bed-room happened to be present at the time of her return. My lords; she was struck with the manner of the princess. There was an air of agitation in her manner. Upon her return she hastened to her apartment. She gave strict orders that William Austin should not be admitted into her room upon that evening, She was observed to go from her room towards that which was assigned to Bergami, and to which she had previously herself retired; and she very soon dismissed her female attendant, in a manner quite novel—she told her she had no far-

747
ther occasion for her services. The female attendant retired, but not without those suspicions which those circumstances would naturally excite in the mind of any individual who had observed them. She knew that at that time Bergami was in his bed-room. This was the first alteration of the arrangement I have stated to your lordships, and placing him so near the apartment of her majesty; it was quite new that she should be dismissed in the manner in which she was; and she could not but observe the conduct and demeanor of the princess, which evidently marked there was something on her mind which the attendant had not previously observed. But, my lords, if her suspicions were excited upon that evening, they were confirmed by her observations upon the following morning. And, my lords, in any other case than such a one as that which is now to be presented to your lordships, if the evidence at your lordships bar shall prove that which I am now about to state, it would be, I apprehend, evidence upon which no jury would hesitate to come to the conclusion, that an adulterous intercourse had taken place upon that very night, between this exalted personage and this menial servant. For, my lords, on the following morning, upon observing the state of the rooms, it was discovered that it was evident her majesty had not slept in her own room on that night. The bed remained almost precisely in the state in which it had been upon the preceding day; and, my lords, the bed assigned to the other person had, to the observation of those who saw it upon the following morning, the clear decisive marks of two persons having slept in that bed.
My lords; I should state to your lordships, that these apartments of her majesty were at a distance and removed from those which were assigned to any part of the suite. My lords; upon the following morning it was perceived, that her majesty did not come from her room at the usualhour—that access to her majesty's room was not afforded; at least no one ventured to go in, until they received the necessary call or signal from her majesty, but her majesty remained in those apartments with this man Bergami in those rooms which I have stated to your lordships, until a late hour upon the following morning. My lords; her recent arrival at Naples had naturally induced persons
748
to pay that respect to H. It. H. which her rank demanded; and various persons, upon the 10th of November, called at her house for the purpose of paying her those respects. But, my lords, her majesty was not accessible until a late hour upon that morning. I have already stated to your lordships the observations which were then made upon the state of the bed that was appropriated to her majesty and that which had been assigned to the courier Bergami. My lords; I say that here upon these facts, I think no one can doubt or hesitate upon the conclusion to which they will arrive upon the case, when I come to narrate to your lordships the various circumstances which subsequently occurred; your lordships will have no doubt, I think, upon your minds, that this was the commencement of that most scandalous, most degrading, and most licentious intercourse, which your lordships will find continued and increased, from the period to which I am now directing your lordships attention.
My lords; the natural effect of such an intercourse is to alter the comparative distance of the parties—I mean the distance which ought to exist between a person of royal rank and one of her menial servants. But, my lords, when once a person of that exalted rank demeans and degrades herself to such an intimacy as that which I have described, it naturally creates, in the manner and temper of the person with whom that intercourse is formed, a freedom and an assumption which, under other circumstances, they could not venture to assume. My lords; such was the case here. It was observed by the domestics, that Bergami's conduct became more haughty—that there was an assumption of more importance—and the whole demeanour of her majesty towards this person when she was unobserved by those persons of rank and station about her, was such as convinced those who had the opportunity of observing it, that this intercourse was continued and going on between them.
My lords; a few days, I believe, after the time to which I have now called your lordships attention, her majesty gave a masked ball or entertainment to the person who at that time filled the Neapolitan throne, at a house which, I believe, belonged to the then king of Naples, and which was given by her majesty in return for the reception which

749
she had received at that court. At that masked entertainment her majesty first assumed the character of a Neapolitan peasant; but after she had remained a short time at this entertainment, she returned to the house at which she had attired herself, which was not the house at which she resided, but a house near that at which the entertainment was given, and she withdrew to a room for the purpose of changing her dress; and, to the surprise of her attendants, instead of being accompanied upon that occasion by those females who usually assisted her majesty upon those occasions, the courier Bergami was sent for, and withdrew with her into the apartment, for the purpose of this change of dress. My lords; it seems that it was her majesty's intention to appear in a character which had been, whether selected by her majesty or the wish of some other person that she should assume I know not, but she was to assume the character of the Genius of History, and she was to be accompanied by a gentleman to the entertainment, in that character. My lords; I am instructed to state to your lordships, that the dress which she had assumed, or rather the want of it in part, was an extremely indecent and disgusting character. But, my lords, the material fact to which your lordships attention is to be directed is this; that that change of dress took place in the presence and with the assistance of Bergami; no other persons being at that time present. My lords; let me ask your lordships, in stating this fact, what motive can be assigned, what reason can be given, that a person who at that time filled one of the most menial situations in her majesty's service; who waited at table behind her majesty's chair; who rode as courier before her majesty when she travelled from one place to another—I ask your lordships what reason can be assigned by any reasonable person, why this man should be selected upon this occasion—why her attendants should be discarded at this time—and why he, and he alone, is to be present at the time, and to assist her majesty in this change of dress? But, my lords, more; after her majesty had appeared in this character, she returned a third time; and she then changed her dress, and assumed that of a Turkish peasant; and this courier—this menial—is also attired in a similar dress, and assumes a similar character, that of a Turk-
750
ish peasant, I believe, and actually accompanies her majesty in that disguise to this entertainment given by her majesty to royalty, and at which the nobility and persons of the highest rank at Naples-were at that time assembled. It will appear to your lordships, that Bergami did not long remain at this place; but he returned alone, apparently mortified from some circumstance which probably had occurred at that entertainment. Her majesty returned and pressed him to go again with her, but he declined. Her majesty was much disappointed at this—returned alone, I believe, and the entertainment soon after closing, she returned to her house, where the apartments in which the servants slept were arranged as I have already stated to your lordships, and which it is unnecessary for me now to repeat.
My lords; it was observed by those whose duly it was to attend to her majesty that in the morning when she rose and afterwards breakfasted, Bergami always rose just at the same period; and, my lords, they observed, that in those apartments so situated as I have stated to your lordships, at a distance from the other apartments inhabited by that part of the suite composed as I have stated to your lordships, her majesty was daily in the habit and practice of breakfasting with this courier. Your lordships will observe, that during the whole of the period to which I am now calling your lordships attention, this man's situation in the family remained the same. He was still the courier—he wasstillthevalet-de-cham-bre,—at least still the footman; and, consequently, when her majesty dined, this man still continued to wait at the table; and therefore to those of her suite composed of the English ladies of distinction and the gentlemen of distinction I have enumerated to your lordships, at this time he appeared to them undoubtedly still in that character in which he had been hired into her majesty's service; and it was only in private and in secret, and only in the presence of those servants whose presence was absolutely necessary to perform those offices about her majesty's person which required their attendance in private—it was to them, and to them only, that at this period those familiarities were visible. But, my lords, her majesty did also occasionally walk upon the terrace which adjoined

751
the apartments which she herself occupied; and she was also seen by those persons occasionally walking arm in arm with this courier—with this menial servant.
My lords; it happened that during her majesty's residence at Naples this person met with an accident. He received some injury from the kick of a horse, and he was confined for some time to his room in consequence of that injury. My lords; he had already acquired that ascendancy over her majesty that he was enabled, even at that period, to introduce into the family a servant, and that servant, upon that occasion was selected by him for the purpose of attending upon him during this illness; and, my lords, this servant sleeping near the room in which Bergami slept, did, during the time that he was thus in attendance upon him, observe, more than once—I believe two or three times—that after all the persons in the house had retired to rest, her majesty went from her own room with great caution and great care, through the passage which I have described to your lordships, to Bergami's room, and that she remained there for a very considerable period. And I am instructed that it will be proved to your lordships, that at those times this person, after her majesty had entered the room of Bergami and had been there for a short time, heard sounds which convinced him that her majesty and Bergami were at that time kissing each other in that room in which Bergami slept. My lords; I am aware how these circumstances, disgusting as they are when detailed to your lordships, naturally excite that feeling which undoubtedly I anticipate must be excited in your lordships minds of disgust. It is with great pain I am under the necessity of doing it; but, as I have stated to your lordships, the duty cast upon me—nay, the duty cast upon your lordships—requires that I not only should state them to you—undoubtedly stating them to you with as much reserve as I can—but that I should state to your lordships those circumstances fully, that your lordships may perfectly understand the nature of the intercourse which at this time was going on between the parties, and the familiarities observed between them by those who had the opportunities of observation, and I am sure I shall not incur your lordships censure by detailing those facts, as I feel myself com-
752
pelled to do in the statement I am now making to your lordships.
My lords; her majesty remained at Naples from the month of November to the following month of March, and during the whole of that period, it will be proved to your lordships that the intimacy continued and increased between those persons. My lords; I am not at liberty, and ought not to allude to any public rumour, or any thing but what can be substantiated in proof; but it is a little singular that her majesty at her quitting Naples loses great part of that English suite which accompanied her from this country. My lords; the fact itself needs no comment; it speaks volumes to every unprejudiced mind. Your lordships will find, that on her quitting Naples, several of those persons who had attended her thither remained at Naples and ceased to form part of her suite. Mr. St. Leger, I have stated, had quitted her at Brunswick; therefore my observation does not apply to him; but, my lords, lady Elizabeth Forbes remained at Naples upon her majesty's quitting that place. Lady Charlotte Lindsay left her majesty at Leghorn, in the month of March 1815, in the course of her majesty's proceeding from Naples to Milan; but at Naples was left lady Elizabeth Forbes; at Naples were left sir William Gell and the hon. Keppel Craven; at Naples was left captain Hesse; so that of seven English persons who had accompanied her majesty from this country—one of them undoubtedly quitting at Brunswick—to whom my observation does not apply—four of the remaining six left her majesty's service at Naples.
My lords; there may be, and probably will be, reasons assigned for those persons quitting her majesty's service at that period; but I cannot but think it a little singular, that at this period she should have been quitted by so many of those attendants who had accompanied her from this country. It will be hereafter, my lords, to be explained how this took place. I cannot help thinking, however, that your lordships will at least think there is great reason to believe that although not aware—as probably and undoubtedly they were not aware—of the degrading and vicious intercourse which had taken place between her majesty and Bergami at that time, yet that probably some observations might have been made by others with respect to the familiarities between them.

753
But whether that was so or not the fact is that which I have stated to your lordships, that her majesty is there quitted by those persons.
My lords; during her majesty's residence at Naples, another circumstance well worthy of your lordships attention took place with reference to her majesty and Bergami. There was a public masquerade at a theatre in that city—the Theatre Saint Carlos, I think. Her majesty chose to go to this masquerade, and, my lords, not accompanied by lady Charlotte Lindsay, or lady Elizabeth Forbes, or any of those gentlemen who held the high situations of chamberlains in her majesty's service; but her companions on that occasion were the courier Bergami and a female servant who was a fille-de-chambre, a mademoiselle Demont—the only companions of her majesty on this occasion were those two domestics. My lords, the dresses chosen by her majesty on that occasion were, as I am instructed, of the most indecent description—of such a description, that upon her entrance into the theatre with those persons, Bergami and Demont, attention was generally excited; so much so, that they were received with considerable insult upon that occasion—I mean marks of disapprobation were shown by the persons present, insomuch that they were under the necessity of retiring; and they withdrew home hastily from that masquerade. My lords, how did her majesty go to that theatre? Not in her royal carriage accompanied, as I have stated to your lordships, by those around her who would naturally be her companions upon such an occasion, but a common fiacre was procured—they did not go out at the door, the common entrance to her majesty's house, but they crossed the garden in the night to this coach waiting at the garden gate, and these three persons in this carriage went, in the manner I have described to your lordships, to this scene; and, my lords, that took place which I have stated to your lordships, and they withdrew long before the entertainment would otherwise have ended, in consequence of the observations her dress occasioned. Perceiving that she was discovered, her majesty hastily withdrew to her house, accompanied by Bergami and Demont. Why, my lords, we have heard, in the course of what has already taken place before your lordships, some criticisms upon the language of the preamble of this bill, with
754
respect to what may or may not be called indecent or offensive familiarities: but I ask your lordships whether if what I have stated to your lordships be proved, there is any one of your lordships, or any man in the country, who can doubt that the familiarities I have described were of the most offensive and disgusting kind—whether they were such as were fitting, I will not say to a person of the illustrious rank of H. It. H. but to any woman of delicacy or virtue, of whatever rank or station? For, my lords, let me not forget to state to your lordships, that, which if I did not state now, would, in the course of a very short period of my narrative have appeared to your lordships; and that which I believe your lordships will think is no small aggravation of these offensive and disgusting familiarities, that Bergami, at the time he entered into her majesty's service, was a married man. I say, my lords, adultery perhaps can hardly be aggravated: but here is a double adultery, if adultery has been committed; and, my lords, I will show to your lordships, that her majesty was aware of that circumstance from that which, very shortly after the period to which I am now calling your lordships attention, actually took place.
My lords; I do not here again repeat that which I am afraid I shall have too often to repeat in the course of what I have to state to your lordships, the various acts of familiarity which were daily occurring between those persons; because, if I were to do so, I must be constantly repeating the same guilty conduct. My lords; it will be proved to you, that during her majesty's residence at Naples, as I have already stated to your lordships, her majesty was almost daily in the habit of breakfasting with this courier—that they were in the habit of retiring to their rooms almost at the same moment—that her majesty dismissed from her bed-room the servant who had previously attended her majesty, and assisted in taking off those habiliments which she was attired with at the time she retired to rest—that those services were dispensed with, and that this occurred which never had previously, that Bergami, of all the servants of her suite, was the only person admitted to her bed-room without being sent for, or without giving some intimation at the door; but he was admitted at all times, without ceremony and without notice: whereas no other person in her suite or establishment, at that time could venture to take that liberty.

755
My lords; as I have already stated to your lordships, the natural consequence of all this was an assumption with respect to the establishment; which your lordships will find very soon increased to that extent, that he became the lord and master of the family. That did not occur, undoubtedly, at the time he quitted Naples, except as to the one circumstance I have mentioned, of one servant being taken into the service who had been a friend and an acquaintance of his previously.
My lords; on her majesty's quitting Naples, which I believe was about the month of March, 1815, she went to Rome, where she staid a short time, I believe two or three days, at the European Hotel, and from thence to Civita Vecchia, where she embarked aboard a frigate in his majesty's service, called the Clorinde: she sailed in that frigate to Genoa, in the course of her voyage leaving lady Charlotte Lindsay at Leghorn; so that upon her arrival at Genoa she had no English lady of rank in her suite, but was at that time joined by lady Charlotte Campbell, who remained with her during the time she was at Genoa, and quitted her majesty's family in the month of May following at Milan. My lords; on her embarkment on board the Clorinde, Bergami still filled the menial situation of a courier and attendant at her majesty's table; and I mention this circumstance to your lordships, for a reason which I think you will, by-and-by, easily perceive. He waited behind her majesty's chair at the table during the voyage from Civita Vecchia to Genoa. My lords; at Genoa it was observed by her majesty's servants, that the confidence and intimacy which existed between her majesty and Bergami greatly increased, and that now he frequently withdrew at the time when it was ordinarily his duty to wait at the table, endeavouring to avoid that menial service as much as possible, accompanying her majesty in her rides and in her walks: and, my lords, at Genoa an apartment was again assigned to him very near her majesty's, and which had a communication with it; and the observation which had occurred at Naples was here made more frequently, that the bed appropriated to her majesty in her room appeared rarely to have been slept in.—My lords, so rarely, that the servant whose duty it was to make it up daily, found it unnecessary to be at that trouble; for she found it often as being little discomposed—apparently not at all
756
discomposed by a person sleeping in it. There was an appearance sometimes of the bed having been pressed down for the purpose of giving it the appearance of being slept in; but so little, that the servant contented herself by sometimes not at all touching the bed, and sometimes by only setting the counterpane or quilt right. My lords; Bergami's bed room was very near and had easy communication with her majesty's. Upon this part of the case, let me ask your lordships, why, if it was necessary, that a male attendant should sleep near her majesty, it was that one of those persons who filled the highest situations in her majesty's suite was not selected for that purpose, and how it happened, that this man Bergami, who had been known to her majesty not more than three weeks when first it took place—between whom and her majesty, except for the purpose of this disgraceful intercourse, little familiarity or intercourse could have taken place—I ask, why it was that this man was always selected to sleep near her majesty's person? How happened it that her majesty did not sleep in her own bed, and how happened it, as it will be proved to you, that Bergami's bed had frequently the appearance of two persons sleeping in it—and that her majesty was observed, as she was at Naples, to visit his bed-room after he was in bed, and to remain in that room with him for a considerable time? What, my lords, should induce a person filling the high rank of Princess of Wales to visit a common courier who happened to have received an injury—to visit him after he is in bed? Why, my lords, what reasonable, what possible cause can be assigned for this familiarity, but that which I think your lordships will believe took place, namely, that adulterous and licentious intercourse which existed between them.
My lords; I know that, upon this part of the case, it is incumbent on your lordships to be satisfied, by a reasonable evidence, that an adulterous intercourse had taken place; and, my lords, not only the circumstances that I have stated to your lordships occurred, but you will find, as the narrative proceeds, that if this evidence be not sufficient to satisfy your lordships as to the nature of the intercourse, it will be put beyond the possibility of doubt by other facts which I shall have to state to you in the course of my narrative. My lords; at Genoa again

757
began the practice I have stated to your lordships, of their breakfasting together in a retired part of the house, separate from that in which her majesty's suite resided; and here took place some circumstances which mark the power this courier was acquiring over her majesty by this degrading and disgraceful conduct of hers towards him. My lords; I have stated to your lordships that he was a married man. He had a daughter called Victorine; and, my lords, at Genoa this child is brought and received into her majesty's family. Not only the child, but a brother of Bergami's, named Lewis, was taken into the service. His sister, a person of the name of Faustina, was received into her family, for the purpose, as it was said, of assisting in taking care of this child, for whom Bergami had a great affection, and whom her majesty wished to adopt into her family. Nay, more, my lords; from the affection which this man was stated to have for one of his parents, the other I believe being dead, his mother also is removed into her majesty's family. So that at Genoa there are at once introduced his brother in a menial situation in the service, his sister, his mother, and his child, Victorine. Why, I ask your lordships, how is this to be accounted for? Is it usual in any family for a person who even for a long time has been in the service of his master or mistress, and may have faithfully performed that service—but still less for a man who has been but a few months in the service? for your lordships will find that he was received into her majesty's service at the latter end of October, 1814; but in the month of April or May, in the following year, a few short months after he has been so received into the service, his mother, his sister, his brother, his child, are all at once taken into the family, for no assignable reason whatever. When the child was taken into the family, I believe she was only of the age of two or three years—of very tender years at that time. But who is received into it to take care of the child? Your lordships would naturally suppose that a child of those tender years required the fostering care of her mother. But no, my lords, the wife is not received into the service. She remains apart from her husband—the child, the sister, the mother, and the brother are received; but the wife, who would be the natural person to take care of and to watch over the health of this infant, is
758
not received into the family, but the child is withdrawn from her care, and received into it. And, my lords (which I think greatly aggravates the case), her majesty, though she knew that Bergami was married, as I will prove to you by her own declarations at a subsequent period, represented that which one should have thought would not have added to the esteem which she might have felt for a faithful servant: she represented to some of those about her, that Bergami was not married—that this was a child he had had by some person, and that she was on that account anxious to receive this child. My lords, I say that circumstance one should have thought, to a virtuous and to a delicate mind, would not have tended greatly to increase the estimation for the menial courier. But that was no defect in her majesty's eyes. She consented to receive the child, and, as I have stated to your lordships, consented to receive it under those circumstances.
My lords; her majesty remained in Genoa until the 15th of May. She then went from that place to Milan, leaving lady Charlotte Campbell at Genoa; but I believe lady Charlotte Campbell shortly after joined her at Milan; where, however, she remained for a very short time, finally quitting her majesty's service in that month of May 1815, having joined her majesty at Genoa in the month of April. My lords; in the journey from Genoa to Milan, Bergami still accompanied her majesty's carriages as a courier; but you will remark, that lady Charlotte Campbell did not accompany her majesty in that journey, though she afterwards attended her at Milan. In the course of this journey, it was observed by the servants, that her majesty frequently conversed with her courier—that she offered him refreshments from time to time, and showed the strongest marks of attention to him—he still habited and performing his services as a courier. My lords, at Milan, her majesty first lodged at some house in a part of the town where she remained only two or three days, I believe; but she went to another called the Boromeo, where she staid about two months. My lords, on lady Charlotte Campbell's quitting her at Milan, her majesty was left without any English lady whatever in her suite. One would have thought that, considering the high rank and station of her majesty—considering the expectation she had of

759
becoming queen consort of this realm—that she would naturally have been anxious, during the whole course of her absence, to have had about her person as her companions ladies of high rank and distinction of this country. But, my lords, if there were any difficulty in that, at least we should have expected that she would have looked for persons of a similar rank either in the country she visited, or in her native country Brunswick; but, will your lordships believe, that upon this occasion she received into her service a person whom she had never seen nor heard of— a person of vulgar manners—an uneducated person. But, my lords, who was that person? My lords, that person was another sister of the courier Bergami. The man at that time who filled that menial situation in her service and waited at her table, contrives, by the power he has assumed over her majesty, to obtain admission for a female, designated as the countess Old, and who is her majesty's only female companion on the travels on which she was about to proceed. So that your lordships have now two sisters, the mother, the brother, and the child received into her majesty's family — the sister sitting at table with her majesty as lady of honour, Bergami waiting at table as courier, the brother performing menial services, the mother dining at the table with the servants, Bergami dining at the table with the servants, and the sister received into the family as lady of honour!
My lords; it was known to some persons at Naples, that the countess Oldi was the sister of Bergami. It was not known to any other of the suite. She carefully abstained from communicating that circumstance to others. Bergami was anxious to conceal the fact; but it could not be long concealed, and the fact became known that the sister of Bergami was received into her majesty's service, in the month of May 1815, not only as her lady of honour, but as the only person filling that high rank and situation in her majesty's service, which had been previously filled by those ladies of distinction of this country whose names I have stated to your lordships, lady Charlotte Lindsay, lady Elizabeth Forbes, and afterwards lady Charlotte Campbell. What inference can your lordships draw from this circumstance? Not that I am asking your lordships to decide on inference and suspicion—but when your lordships couple
760
this with other circumstances I have stated, and shall hereafter state, can any man doubt what was the cause, what was the motive, what was the reason, for the introduction of those persons into the service?
My lords; her majesty had not been long at Milan before she made a tour to Venice, and upon that tour Bergami still accompanied her as a courier. My lords, to show your lordships the degree of familiarity which existed between those persons, I will now state to your lordships a circumstance which occurred on that visit to Venice in the month of May or June 1815. I have stated to your lordships the different periods at which the English gentlemen had quitted; but she had been joined at Milan by Mr. Drummond Burrell, who accompanied her to Venice.
Lord Gwydir.—My lords, I must beg leave to set the learned counsel right, by stating, that it was not Mr. Drummond Burrell who accompanied her majesty.
Mr. Attorney General.—My lords; I mean Mr. William Burrell. I am sure your lordships will believe that I am betrayed into the error by carelessness, but that I did not mean the slightest reflection upon the noble lord, or upon the gentleman whose name I mentioned. My lords, I am stating to your lordships the facts—I mean not the slightest reflection upon any of those gentlemen whose names I have mentioned; but that Mr. William Burrell was the only English gentleman who had replaced those gentlemen I have stated to your lordships, and that he accompanied her majesty on that tour from Milan to Venice. I am not imputing to Mr. William Burrell—far from it—the slightest suspicion. I have no doubt he was ignorant of that which was taking place in her majesty's family. I undoubtedly did not state that Mr. Burrell was cognizant of the facts I have stated. I am sure your lordships will excuse me in the difficult task I have to perform, and will excuse the error into which I fell. I was about to state to your lordships a fact which took place at Venice. My lords, at Venice, upon one occasion, when after her majesty had dined, and her attendants had withdrawn from the table, and she was left in the room with Bergami, who had been waiting upon that occasion, and was still, as I have stated to your lordships, in the situation of courier, it was observed, not by one of

761
her own attendants, but by one of the servants at the hotel, that, alter the company had retired, her majesty took a gold chain and presented it to Bergami and placed it upon his neck—that upon that occasion there was a great familiarity and playfulness between those persons. He withdrew it from his own person, and placed it upon her majesty. Her majesty replaced it upon him; and this occurred in the presence of one of the servants of that establishment. My lords, why do I mention this fact? I mention it to show your lordships how this familiarity was proceeding—how this improper intercourse was increasing between these persons, and that, even at that time, when he was filling this menial situation, she was conferring upon him this favour, and marking him out from all the rest of her suite, by this present she had made to him at Venice. After this had taken place, she went to the room to which the other parts of her suite had retired; and, in stating this, I am imputing nothing, I trust, to any person but to her majesty and Bergami; but your lordships will think that it is a fact which strongly confirms the other parts of the narrative which I have been making to your lordships, and which proves conclusively the familiarity and intercourse which at that time existed between those persons.
My lords; her majesty returned, after a few days, from Venice to Milan, and after her return she went to the house of the Villa Villani. Here, after she had been a short time, Mr. William Burrell quitted her majesty's establishment, he having remained with her a short time when she was at Milan upon the tour to Venice—and upon her return to Milan to the Villa Vallani, Mr. William Burrell quitted,
My lords; it was observed by the servants, that by degrees as the English establishment quitted till they had totally quitted—for she had not now one English servant—her majesty was less reserved in her intercourse with Bergami. It was observed at the Villa Villani, that she had presented him with a gown of her own—a silk bed-gown, which Bergami wore as a morning gown. My lords, it was observed at the Villa Villani, that the arrangement of the rooms continued as it had at the other places—that his room was very near that which she occupied at night—and that there was a free communication to go from one to the other,
762
without being observed by the other parts of the establishment. Here again that was observed which I have already stated to your lordships, that Bergami had free access to her majesty's bed-room without ceremony, without notice—and that he was the only person of the suite who had this permission and licence given to him.—My lords, after Mr. Burrell had quitted, and after, as I have stated before, all those had withdrawn from her service who had accompanied, who went with her from this country, and when no English lady remained about her, and no English person of distinction in her train, her reserve to Bergami became less, and she became also more familiar with the rest of her servants. My lords, I do not impute it to her majesty as a crime or an offence, although I think she much demeaned herself; but I can attribute it only to this most unfortunate, this most wicked attachment she had formed for her courier, who was one of those servants. She was in the habit of familiarly playing with her servants at games. When I state this, I do not impute this to her majesty as a crime by itself: it may be nothing; but when you consider the reasons, the occasions, the circumstances, under which this familiarity took place—I say, my lords, I think it must prove to your lordships satisfaction, that it arose out of that degrading, that licentious attachment which she had formed for the courier Bergami, and that no other circumstance would have tempted her majesty to demean herself to those acts of familiarity which she was in the habit of showing, not only towards him, but towards her other servants, by playing at games at the Villa Villani.
My lords; during the time she remained there, during the mount of August 1815, her majesty visited Mount St. Gothard, and upon that occasion was accompanied, as she always was, by Bergami, who still, I believe, filled the station of courier in her service. My lords, upon that occasion she visited a place called Varise. She stopped at the inn at Varise, where she dined; and it will be proved to you, that upon that occasion she retired with Bergami to a bed-room, and was shut up in that bed-room with him for a considerable time. This, my lords, in the day-time-at a period when no apparent reason required the attendance of Bergami; who was still her courier—but such the fact was, that she did retire with him, and was with

763
in a bed-room for a considerable period. My lords, after that dinner they proceeded to a place called Madona della Monte, where they slept, and the next clay they went to the Boromean Isles. My lords, her majesty had visited that place in her way from Germany to Italy, and upon that occasion, as was natural, a large apartment, the best I suppose which the inn afforded, was assigned to her majesty for her bed-room. The persons at the inn naturally expected that the same apartment would be occupied by her majesty upon this occasion; but, my lords, that room bad no communication with any other room in which a person could sleep: and it is remarkable, that upon this second visit, when she was accompanied by the courier Bergami, she alters the arrangements of the rooms—she declines to occupy that which she had occupied upon her first visit—and she solicits another and an inferior apartment, but which other and inferior apartment immediately communicated with the room which was assigned as the sleeping-room of Bergami. Why, my lords, this I say is a little singular. What reason is there fortius? What situation does Bergami fill in the family which requires that he should always sleep in a room adjoining that of her majesty? How is it that he is the person selected by her majesty out of her suite to occupy a room which had immediate communication with his? However, my lords, such was the fact; and I mention it to your lordships to show the difference—that when she had not been accompanied by Bergami, and before he unfortunately entered her service at the time she first visited Italy, another room was assigned to her, which was superior in point of accommodation: But that she refuses upon this occasion, and chooses one near Bergami's and having communication with it. That was, my lords, as I submit, undoubtedly for the purpose of keeping up that intercourse which could not have been the case, at least without exciting observation, and not only observation, but discovery, if her apartment had remained at a distance from that assigned to him; but having taken care to have his room near her own, then the communication was easy, without observation, and afforded the means of continuing that intercourse that had previously existed.
My lords; her majesty also, upon that occasion, upon their return, stopped at a
764
place called Bellinzona; and I mention that place to your lordships because I think it will appear to you, that now indeed their familiarity had arrived at that height, that Bergami thought himself entitled to a much higher place in her majesty's service, and that he was then entitled not only to a much higher place in her majesty's service, but to sit at her majesty's table. My lords, undoubtedly before this, except perhaps upon one occasion, I know not whether upon any, except breakfasting together in private, when no person observed them but those in immediate attendance upon her majesty, she had ventured before this period to introduce Bergami at her own table. But at Bellinzona this man, still retaining the dress of a courier—still performing the menial offices of that service—is actually admitted by her majesty in that dress to her majesty's table at dinner. And I believe your lordships will find, from that period, that he constantly, and afterwards uniformly, dined at her majesty's table. Why! my lords, does this accord with the dignity of a princess?—My lords; if there were such merits in this man which entitled him to advancement, and to high favour and distinction on the part of her majesty, would it not have been more decorous—would it not have been more appropriate in her—to have first advanced him to those situations which would have entitled him to dine in company with her majesty, and at her majesty's table?—But no, my lords, this infatuated attachment had so taken possession of her Majesty's mind, that she actually, in the presence of her servants, admits this man, in the garb of a servant, to dine as a companion with her. My lords, I may be told this is pardonable familiarity—that this is levity—that these are foreign manners. My lords, I know not whether these observations, if they shall be made, will have any weight with your lordships; but I cannot think that, under any circumstances, such familiarity was allowable between a person of the high rank and station of her majesty and one of her menial servants. My lords, was it ever heard of—I will not say in high society—but even in the middle ranks and classes of society, that they admit as their familiar companions at their tables, persons at the time performing menial offices in their houses? My lords, if this does not take place private life—if it would be considered as indecor-

765
ous—how much more indecorous, how much more disgusting, is it when it takes place between a person of the exalted rank and station of her majesty, and a servant holding a menial capacity in her service! My lords, I say, can this be accounted for upon any other reason or motive, than that criminal attachment which had been formed?—My lords, when once such an attachment as that has been formed, and a criminal intercourse has taken place, all distinctions between the persons are thrown down—the lowest and the most vulgar person becomes upon a level with the highest, and they assume—and they assume that which they have a right to assume towards such persons—to be treated by them with the same attention as a person of the rank equivalent to that her royal highness enjoyed—which was the case with this person at that period, and continued to be so.
My lords; upon that occasion also they visited Lugano; and at Lugano your lordships will find the most decisive evidence of that which occurred at various other places of an adulterous intercourse taking place between them. The arrangement of the rooms at all these places is abreast, always the same, and care is taken that the room of the courier Bergami shall be near that of the Queen. And, my lords, without entering into disgusting particulars, your lordships will find that upon the visit at Lugano, at least I think when the evidence comes before your lordships you will be satisfied of that which the facts of the case I think will have left no doubt upon your lordships minds had previously existed—namely, that an actual adulterous intercourse took place between those parties.
My lords; upon her return from this tour, her majesty established herself at a villa near Como, the Villa d'Este; and your lordships will find that, upon her establishment at this place, the bed-rooms of the Princess and Bergami were arranged in a manner similar to that I have described to your lordships as taking place at the various places her majesty visited—that they were divided only by a small cabinet communicating internally with the chamber on the one side of her majesty, and on the other of Bergami, the doors of which chambers were opposite to each other, and the apartments thus assigned to her majesty and Bergami being at a distance and separate from the rest of the family. My lords, here
766
was observed to take place that which I have already stated to have taken place before, that the Princess and Bergami retired to their bed-room about the same period, and rose about the same hour in the morning, and during her residence at the Villa d'Este, her majesty thinking, no doubt, that it would at least appear better to the world that he should appear in a particular character, he was advanced to the dignity of her majesty's chamberlain, and in that character constantly dined with her majesty, and from that period, without interruption, he dined at her majesty's table, with the dame d'honneur or countess Oldi, and those persons admitted to that honour.
My lords, she continued at the Villa d'Este till the month of November 1815. She then went to Genoa, and on the 15th of November 1815 she embarked on board one of his majesty's ships of the line, the Leviathan, and proceeded in that ship to Sicily. My lords, on her going on board the Leviathan, apartments, the best that could be provided, were naturally allotted to her majesty. It had been thought, of course, by those who were not aware of the intercourse which had taken place between her majesty and Bergami, that the proper mode of assigning those apartments would be to place her female attendants as near her majesty as might be; and therefore two cabins in the inside of the room used as a dining-room were prepared, one for her majesty and one for her lady of honour; a cabin immediately adjoining this, at least adjoining her majesty's room, was assigned to another female servant, in her majesty's suite; but, on her majesty's coming on board, that arrangement of the rooms was altered, and her majesty directed that the room immediately adjoining her own, and which I have stated to your lordships had been supposed a proper room for one of her female attendants, should be appropriated to the use of Bergami. My lords, she remained on board this ship from the 15th of November, when she embarked, until the 26th. I think, in the course of her voyage, she visited Elba, where she staid a day or two. She then sailed to Palermo, where she arrived on the 26th of November 1815. My lords, on board this ship Bergami, as her chamberlain, continued to dine at her majesty's table; but, as was naturally to be expected, your lordships will find that she was extremely cautious, and had been

767
even before this period, in the habit of avoiding in the course of her travels, the meeting with any English persons on the continent. During her short stay on board this ship, she took care to conceal from the eye of those who were strangers to her those familiarities which had commenced, and were no doubt continuing, between herself and Bergami. But, my lords, she did that which I have stated to your lordships—she altered the arrangement of the cabins—she treated Bergami with the greatest familiarity as her chamberlain—she frequently walked with him arm in arm upon the deck, and she appeared particularly attentive to him.
My lords; her majesty arrived at Palermo on the 26th of November 1815, and at Palermo she went to court, and was accompanied by Bergami to the court of Sicily, attired in a very magnificent hussar dress in the character of chamberlain. She remained at Palermo for a very short period, and then went to Messina, where she remained from December the 6th until early in the following month of January—I think the 3rd of January 1816. My lords, upon her arrival at Messina, in the house which she occupied there the same arrangement again took place with respect to the bed-rooms of herself and Bergami—the bed-room of Bergami was very near to the Princess's, but separated by one in which the countess Oldi, his sister, slept—so that in order to arrive at the room of the Princess, you must pass through the room in which Bergami slept, and then the room in which the countess slept. My lords, it was observed that the door of Bergami's room, which, as I have stated to your lordships, opened a communication through his room and through the following room to that of the Princess, and was the only communication door, was constantly locked at night after her majesty and after the countess of Oldi had retired to their rooms.—But, my lords, the apartments of some of the servants who attended upon her majesty—of one at least —was sufficiently near for her occasionally to hear that Bergami was actually in the room of the Princess—and more, it frequently happened in the morning, that when her majesty wanted the assistance of her servant for any purpose about her person, she was frequently seen coming in the state in which she had left her bed, without being dressed, through the room of the countess Oldi and the room Ber-
768
gami himself occupied, and before he had left it. And, my lords, it was observed, that Bergami and the then Princess, her present Majesty, frequently retired at Messina at a very early hour in the evening to their rooms; and that, instead of requiring the assistance of any of her female servants for the purpose of retiring to her bed, that after they had so left the other part of the house and retired to their rooms, they were not seen again from that period till the following morning, and that no assistance was required on the part of the female servants to her majesty previous to her retiring to her bed — frequently she would withdraw without calling either (for her majesty had at that time two filles-de-chambre) to undress her. She became very regardless of her person—she became more apparently endeared to this chamberlain—she called him by the most familiar and endearing titles—"her friend," "her heart," and various other epithets she used when she addressed him. So that no doubt remained upon the minds of those who were in the daily habit of seeing those familiarities and hearing those expressions, and regarding this conduct, that those familiarities which would alone justify those expressions, did continue between: them.
My lords; on the 6th of January 1816, her majesty left Messina, and upon that occasion embarked on board the frigate the Clorinde, which had, as will be in the recollection of your lordships, carried her majesty, after she left Naples from Civita Vecchia to Genoa. My lords, the vessel was still commanded by that same honourable person who had commanded her upon the former occasion; and, my lords, it will be in the recollection of your lordships, that at the period when her majesty first went on board, Bergami had attended upon her in the character of a menial servant, and had waited upon her at table. My lords, upon this second occasion he had been advanced to the dignity of chamberlain, and had been permitted by her majesty to dine at her table. The honourable officer who commanded the Clorinde, and who had previously seen Bergami in the low situation I have described, felt that it even would degrade the English service and himself, if after having witnessed that, he consented or permitted himself to sit at the table with her majesty in company with this person; and therefore an intimation was

769
given by that honourable and gallant officer captain Pechell to her majesty, that if her majesty condescended to come on board his ship, and he was to receive her majesty, as he was bound to do, and to provide a table for her and her suite, he must request her majesty to spare a British officer the disgrace and scandal of sitting at table with a person who had filled that menial situation.—My lords, I think every man—every Englishman I am sure—will enter into the feelings of that honourable officer. I think the conduct of her majesty upon that occasion marks most strongly, how deeply she must have felt the objection which had been taken by this gallant officer; because, my lords, if there had been nothing improper in the advancement of this man—if, as we may Probably hear, his manners, his fidelity in her service, had rendered him an object worthy of her majesty's condescending regard, and had rendered him entitled to be advanced to the high situation he then filled — my lords, I say, the princess, feeling this, would have said, "Do not make this objection. Do not object to sit down with a person of this character, and of these merits. I have not demeaned myself by permitting him to dine at my table, and therefore let me tell the British officer, whoever he may be, that I think he will not be degraded or lowered by associating with such a person." Nay more, I think she would have said, "You are offering me an insult by refusing to associate with this person, with whom I associate. You are offering an insult to me, a princess of the highest rank in my country. You are offering an insult to that country itself. I shall therefore complain of you to that country which has provided me with a ship of war, to visit the places I may be inclined to visit. I will not go on board your ship, but will represent your conduct to your commanding officer, and insist that you shall make that recompence for the insult to me and the country which such conduct demands." I say, my lords, that would have been the conduct of a princess with an inward consciousness of innocence; and if there were not the conviction that this was a most scandalous intercourse originating in that licentiousness which existed between them, such would have been her conduct without hesitation, without reserve; and we should have instantly heard of a complaint made to the commanding officer upon the station. But, my
770
lords, what was the conduct of her majesty upon that occasion? She takes a day or two to consider whether she will consent to captain Pechell's suggestion, and whether she will consent to dismiss this person from her table. And not only that, but she expostulates, and says, captain Briggs of the Leviathan had no objection to associate with him. Upon which captain Briggs said, "he had never waited behind my chair. I did not know him in the degraded situation in which he had been, or I should have acted as captain Pechell has done." Your lordships will remember that captain Pechell had been himself waited upon by this very man in the presence of his officers; and can you consent to compel him now to sit down with this man at the table, as his associate and companion, who had himself stood behind his chair as a menial servant? A difference must strike your lordships minds between the one and the other. Her majesty notwithstanding that, took a day or two to consider of this proposition. And I say, that that hesitation, that that delay, to my mind, is a most convincing proof that she was actuated upon that occasion by that unfortunately infatuated attachment which had laid hold of her, and induced her even to submit to this insult (for insult it was, unless there was that reason for it), rather to submit to this insult than consent to abandon this man's society, even for the few days she was on board the Clorinde; and she embarked on board the ship, and refused to associate with captain Pechell, in order that she might associate at the same table with the countess Oldi and her brother Bergami. Now, I ask, whether this does not convey, more than any thing I can express to your lordships, the conviction of that which had taken place, and was continuing between these persons? She consents to be insulted by an English captain—she consents to have it stated to her, that she has advanced a person from a menial situation to her table, and from which circumstance the captain refused to associate with him, and, without any complaint made of the captain's having so refused, she goes on board that ship, and associates with him, and separates herself in consequence from the captain—she consents during that period to submit to this insult and degradation—she consents to associate with a man whom the captain of an English frigate refused to admit to his own table—be-

771
cause he had filled that menial situation, and because no reason was given—no cause assigned—for the advancement of the man from that situation to the higher; and therefore from the mere circumstance, without any reason assigned, captain Pechell did no more than his duty to himself and to the persons filling the high situation of officers in his majesty's navy by his conduct.
My lords; the Queen yielded. She declined persisting in captain Pechell's sitting down at table with her favourite—and she embarked on board the Clorinde and sailed from Messina to Syracuse, where she landed in four or five days. My lords, at Syracuse, in the house in which she lodged, the same arrangement which I am afraid I tire your lordships almost with repeating—but which it is essential to the case to state—the same arrangement takes place with respect to the bed-rooms. My lords, there were three bed-rooms in the house which she occupied at Syracuse—one occupied by the princess, another by the countess Oldi, and another by Mademoiselle Demont and her sister, the two filles-de-chambre; but there was a private staircase, and it was observed the door of the princess's room communicating with the dining-room was always locked at night; by which means all access to the apartments of Bergami and the princess was cut off, leaving a free communication by means of this private staircase, between her room and that of Bergami. Such was the arrangement of the rooms at Syracuse.—My lords, on the 3rd of that month, she left Syracuse and went to Catania. Your lordships will perceive how material it will be for you to attend to the arrangement of the rooms which originally took place at Catania, and the alteration made therein by her majesty. My lords, at first a room was allotted to Bergami at some distance from her majesty's room; but in a very short time that arrangement was altered, and Bergami's room was removed—he removed himself from the room which had been previously allotted to him, to a room very near to her majesty's, but in going from that room to her majesty's, you must pass through a room which had been allotted to some of the female servants of the house. My lords, the princess and Bergami retired to their rooms earlier than the other persons in the family. These filles-de-chambre had been generally awoke early by
772
the other servants in the family, and therefore did not observe what might be taking place between the Queen and Bergami; but during one morning these servants, remaining longer in their room than usual, observed the door of Bergami's room open, and I will not say to their surprise; for they were perfectly satisfied of what had taken place—the princess was observed going out of Bergami's room at this hour in the morning, and where, therefore, she must have been during the night—for those persons had never observed her go in during the night, and she could have gone in only by passing through this room—they saw her coming out at this hour in the morning, under circumstances which will satisfy your lordships that her majesty had slept that night in Bergami's room—and I will tell your lordships why. She had under her arm a pillow, upon which she always slept, and she was carrying that pillow under her arm from Bergami's room, at the time she was seen by those two servants. Why, my lords, your lordships are not to decide on inference and suspicion, undoubtedly: but you are to decide on reasonable evidence; and I ask your lordships whether in any other case that fact alone—if it were a common case of divorce—that fact alone of a lady having been in the bed-room of a man all night, and having been seen coming out of it in the morning under the circumstances I have stated, would not be sufficient to satisfy any jury of the country that a criminal intercourse had taken place between them? But, when you add to that, the circumstances to which I have called your lordships attention, I mean the other familiarities, and his advancement, no doubt can remain upon the mind of any person, as to the familiarities which had occurred. What reason can be assigned for her coming out of that room with that pillow? And, not only that, but she was at that time undressed; which is a material circumstance. My lords, I say this fact alone, if it be proved to your lordships satisfaction, must satisfy your lordships' minds, that that had taken place during that night, which is charged against her majesty in the preamble to this bill. My lords, another circumstance which occurred at Catania, and which is mentioned for your consideration, is this: your lordships will recollect I mentioned that at Genoa, Bergami's child was received into her majesty's family, and such an extraordinary attachment appears to have

773
been formed by her majesty for this child, that she was never easy or satisfied, but when this child was with her. The child slept in her room—it was dignified at last by the name of princess, and the child, withdrawn from its mother, and susceptible of all these attentions, naturally conceived on her part an attachment to her majesty so great, that frequently at night, if her majesty was withdrawn from the room, the child if it awoke would express its concern at the absence of her majesty, by crying. And, my lords, upon this occasion these servants frequently heard this child crying for her mamma, for that was the title by which she was permitted to call her majesty: they heard the countess endeavouring to quiet this child, but they heard no symptoms of her majesty being in that room, but that which satisfied their minds that she was absent from it, namely, the pain of the child's mind, and the difficulty which the countess of Oldi had to pacify this child. When therefore they saw the princess coming from this room, that left no doubt upon their minds, that that was not the only occasion on which she had slept in that room; but that she had previously gone to that room before they came to bed at night, and had not returned till they had left their room in the morning. This must satisfy your lordships minds, that this adulterous intercourse had taken place during the whole time of her residence at Catania. But at Catania her majesty thought it right, having advanced Bergami to the dignity of her chamberlain, to procure for him higher honours, and at Catania she procured for him the dignity of the knighthood of Malta. From that time she called him (and her suite were of course obliged to follow the same course), his excellency, and she always addressed him as "Monsieur le Chevalier." My lords, what necessity was there for her majesty to dignify him with this knighthood?—None, but that guilty attachment. There was nothing on his part which entitled him to this distinction—there was nothing but this attachment which could be the ground of her majesty's procuring him this dignity. My lords, I should state to your lordships, that when she first visited Catania, as was natural, the nobility of that country paid her those attentions which were demanded by her rank; but it was observed, that after a short time, she was careless of any other society but that of her paramour,—became lees and less visited,
774
and rarely seen in the company of the nobility of that country.
Lord Chancellor.—My lords, the hour has arrived at which your lordships proposed to adjourn.
A Peer.—Has the Attorney-general nearly concluded?
Mr. Attorney General.—I should state to your lordships, that I have not got through one half of the disgusting narrative I must state to your lordships.
Ordered, that the further consideration, and second reading of the said bill, be adjourned to Monday.