Sitting of 3 November 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read,
Earl Grosvenorrose. He said, that having on this important inquiry attended to the evidence that had been given at the bar, as well as to the eloquent speeches of counsel; having also attended to the speeches of noble lords, pronounced yesterday in that House; having thus paid all the attention in his power to this most important case, he had now to declare before God and his country his solemn opinion, that any thing adduced in evidence before them, did not substantiate the cruelly accumulated charges against the Queen. In my conscience (said the noble earl), and as I hope for justice and for mercy at the bar of heaven hereafter, where we must all appear, and where we shall be judged of according to the good or evil we may do on this great occasion, I do believe that these charges have not been proved, and I must, therefore, be under the necessity of saying "Not-content" to this question [Loud cheers!]. He should, he feared, be obliged, in the course of his address, to claim a considerable portion of their lordships' time. They had heard much on the one side of the subject, and yesterday they had heard the able and elaborate speech of the learned lord on the woolsack, as well as the speech of the noble earl (Lauderdale) who had so much distinguished himself by the part which he had taken on this question, and the energy which he had manifested. Whilst on the other hand, the side of the House from whence he addressed them, had to deplore the loss of a powerful ann eloquent advocate (lord Erskine), who had been prevented from following up his speech against the bill; the sudden indisposition of that noble lord was a cause of great regret to them all, but he trusted that his indisposition would be but temporary; he hoped that he would still be able to bring to this question the aid of his powerful talents, and character. It was to be regretted, that, from the abilities which had been employ-

1531
ed in favour of the prosecution—from the eagernesss, zeal, and activity of its supporters—from the number of the charges, infamous and accumulated as they were—from all those circumstances, it was natural, though it was lamentable, that considerable prejudice might even yet be found to press upon the minds of many of those who were shortly to he called on to give their solemn votes. For himself, though he felt strongly and decidedly against the bill, yet, weighed down as he was by the consciousness of his inadequate powers to do justice to the case, he was almost debarred from stating his sentiments to that House. He would, however, venture to recall to the minds of their lordships, the nature of the speech pronounced on this occasion by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and which certainly had a powerful influence; that noble and learned lord declared, that he took a calm and unprejudiced view of the question, and that it was the duty of their lordships to do the same. Undoubtedly it was. Sitting, as they did, as judges and as legislators, on a question so important, so anxiously felt by the people, it was their duty to bring to the consideration unprejudiced minds, and pure and upright hearts. But was it not greatly to be deplored, that the noble and learned lord had not always seen so clearly? If no improper prejudice had ever operated on the mind of the noble and learned lord, and those with whom he acted—if the scales of justice had always been held with an even-hand—then would they have unfortunately and unfairly prejudged the question as they did prejudge it, when they advised the King to strike her majesty's name out of the Liturgy? This was deciding on the case of her majesty before trial—this was a proceeding which justice could never sanction, and which the country universally condemned. It had been well observed by a noble friend of his, that before their lordships attempted to pass this bill, they should well consider whether the other House of Parliament would entertain it. He hoped and believed they never would. He agreed with a noble earl, that, generally speaking, it would be derogatory to their dignity, in discussing a great question of state policy, to let a consideration of that sort operate on their minds. As a general principle, he assented to that doctrine; but when their lordships considered the nature of the question before them—when they re-
1532
collected, that the other House of Parliament, had already decided, that whatever might be the ultimate issue of the question, it would prove derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country; when, in fact, they saw that the House of Commons had tied up their hands by that declaration, how could their lordships suppose that the bill would ever pass that assembly? And moreover, their lordships ought to recollect that the green-bag, a duplicate of which had been laid on the table of their House, was never rummaged or ransacked by the Commons, as it had been by their lordships; but when, on the contrary, it was laid on the table of that House, the Commons paid no regard to it; they appointed no committee to look into its contents, but they indignantly shoved it off their table. These were circumstances which they should well consider, and the more so, as their lordships knew the state of the public feeling on this subject. Never were the generous feelings of the English people roused to so great a height—they made common cause with her majesty, determined to share in her triumph or defeat. Those considerations ought to make wise men pause before they ventured on a measure which might be rejected by the Commons, and which never would be approved by the country. Upon the whole, he thought it a most fortunate circumstance that this trial had taken place; for, after, the gross and unfounded calumnies which had been so long in circulation, it was a subject of no small congratulation, that the true character of those calumnies had been completely exposed. It had been distinctly proved, that a great many of the charges were altogether unfounded, and hence a fair inference might be drawn as to those facts which did not admit of so full a contradiction. The learned lord on the woolsack had stated, that it was impossible for any of their lordships to agree to this bill, unless they had decidedly made up their minds that the charges had been proved; and he had also stated, that before they came to vote, if there remained the slightest doubt upon their minds with regard to the guilt of the Queen, that doubt ought to operate in her favour. This was an important admission, and one which, if acted upon conscientiously, must at once decide the fate of this bill.—Before he proceeded to the consideration of the evidence, he begged to offer one or two remarks upon the alteration which it was

1533
suggested might take place in this bill in the committee—an alteration which would have for its object, not to render the bill more penal, but rather to soften down its severity. It appeared to him impossible that the bill, in its present shape, could pass; and it appeared equally impossible that it should pass, if the alteration were to take place; for, in what an extraordinary situation would the country, the Queen, and the King be placed, if the bill were to pass in so anomalous a shape! What was the Queen to be proved guilty of? She had not committed high treason; she had not committed murder, or any thing that was punishable by the law of England; in its ordinary and justifiable administration. It seemed impossible, under the circumstances of this unparalleled case, to convict her of adultery against the King. She might be guilty of fornication, or, if they pleased, adultery against the state; but, what a metaphysical, hypothetical, metaphorical, double entendre "state" was that; and if she could be divorced from the state now, could she, with any sense of reason or propriety, be still the wife of the King? What an insult to the King! The learned lord had told them, that in the committee the enacting clauses could be altered, not, undoubtedly, to make them more penal, but to alleviate their rigour. Still, however, the bill could never meet with his support. He considered the learned lord, and the noble earl who took part in the debate yesterday, though the latter did not pro-fess to throw aside the evidence of Majoochi, Demont, Sacchi, and others, had taken nearly the same view of the subject, and had come to the same conclusion. As to the Barona—it had been said by the noble earl, that it had been purchased by her royal highness for Bergami. But he thought the noble earl could not point, out that part of the evidence in which this fact was proved. After all, it was of very little importance, as the Barona was nothing more than a little farm. That her majesty entertained a favourable opinion of Bergami, that she felt anxious to promote him—that, as a mistress, she was partial and friendly to him, there could be no doubt. Though she thought well of Bergami, he did not think that it was at all unreasonable to suppose that this might be solely on account of his honest services and approved fidelity. Their lordships had no right to assume the contrary; for he would maintain that in no part of
1534
the case was the fact of adultery proved. With respect to the case at Carlsruhe, a complete contradiction had been supplied by unexceptionable witnesses. The story which had been told of what occurred there, was most improbable. He thought it utterly impossible that that which had been described could have taken place. But admitting that the story told of the cloak found there might by possibility be true, when so much was to be inferred against the Queen, was it not fair that some inference should be drawn in her favour? Was it not possible that the Grimms and those persons about the Queen, whose object it was, to destroy her character, might have placed that cloak where it was found, in order to injure her majesty? Their lordships all remembered the play of Othello, and the manner in which the wretch Iago disposed of the handkerchief of Desdemona in such a way that it should fall into the hands of Cassio. Might there not be some Iagos now to be found in the world?—He now came to the promotion of Bergami. A variety of circumstances tended to account for that elevation. Would their lordships consider the situation of her majesty—the attack that had been made upon her life—the circumstances of Ompteda's interference, of his attempts to corrupt her servants, and to procure false keys for her drawers—beset upon as she was, defenceless, exposed to danger, she found in Bergami a faithful servant. Was he so or not? The fact was not denied. Was it then too much to suppose that his merits might have recommended him to the notice of his royal mistress? Was it not possible that, without entertaining any criminal views, she might have raised him from a low situation—that she might have conferred these honours on him, because she found him a faithful, honest, man, deserving of promotion?—In the situation in which her majesty stood, nothing was more fair than to assume so much. The instances were not few where worthy and deserving persons had been raised from low situations to favours and honours; and it almost invariably happened that the family and connexions of such persons were selected to partake of their prosperity. The attorney-general had said, that Bergami after the supposed intrigue with her majesty had commenced, had risen in wealth, in power, in possessions, and pride; and that finally, all the respect with which he had formerly treated her majesty, was no more. Where was

1535
the proof of this? Bergami had always treated her royal highness with the greatest respect, and every one about her. In one instance it had been attempted to contradict this; with what success their lordships were aware.—He now came to the scene on board the polacre. From the open communication with the cabins below, from the hatchway being constantly open, and from all the circumstances connected with the situation of her royal highness at that time, he thought that the last time and place that would have been selected for the purpose of carrying on an adulterous intercourse. It was the less probable that any thing of the kind took place there, as it had been stated by lieut. Hownam, that there was no mystery at all connected with the arrangements of the tent. Taking, therefore, the whole of these circumstances together, he could most conscientiously affirm it to be his opinion, that the charges against the Queen were not substantiated. The only witnesses of any respectability brought forward in favour of the bill, led him to the same conclusion. Speaking of the rest of those witnesses, he should say that such a set of witnesses he had never seen; whereas, he never saw a more respectable body of witnesses, generally speaking, than those who were adduced on the Queen's defence. Their manner and the candour of their answers formed a complete contrast to those who had been brought on the other side. Captain Briggs and captain Pechell were almost the only witnesses of respectability adduced by the counsel for the bill, and their testimony was negatively in favour of the Queen. Did they hear of any suspicions that attached to the Queen while she was aboard the Clorinde? If they looked to captain Briggs's testimony, they would see it was impossible that any adulterous intercourse could have taken place. Yet, when the Queen knew this, she gave the direction for Bergami's cabin to be near her own. Her doing this at the time when she must have known the utter impossibility of an adulterous intercourse, was a strong proof that it was not done either then or at any other time from improper motives.—He now came to remark on a circumstance, which he should be surprised if it did not strike their lordships. Demont came hither with all the disposition, as far as double entendre went, at least, to say all that would bear against the honour, and per-
1536
haps the life, of her royal mistress. She was examined most particularly as to this point; and did it not strike their lordships as astonishing, that, in spite of this pretended long continuance of the adulterous intercourse, she could not prove one single fact of adultery? Whenever the counsel for the Crown pressed her on this point, though she had been constantly about her path and her bed, and had spread out all her ways, they were always manifestly disappointed by her answers. As to the indecencies which were said to have taken place on the deck of the polacre, in the presence of Gargiulo and paturzo, it was not possible to conceive that they could have taken place without the knowledge of lieutenants Hownam and Flinn and others, who positively denied their having witnessed any thing like them. Now, as to the persons who swore as to those indecencies, in addition to the remuneration for their attendance, which was undoubtedly extraordinary, there was the indefinite expectation held out to Gargiulo, as to his outstanding claim for an indefinite remuneration. About Faturzo there was a singular abruptness and pertness, which did not speak in favour of his testimony. Much stress was laid upon what had been said by Paturzo, as to Bergami lying on a bed or sofa, and the princess standing near him. Undoubtedly when people were determined to suspect, there was no end to suspicions. The evidence here relied upon, reminded him of a person who had been jealous of his wife; and why? because after she had been in a room with a gentleman, at a certain time, he found two chairs together, and therefore concluded that a criminal intercourse must have taken place.—In adverting to the circumstances which had led the House into this inquiry, he said, he had heard it rumoured (and such rumours were always indecorous), that his majesty and not the ministers had urged the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy. Whether this was true or not, he knew not (for those rumours were but too often spread by the partizans of ministers to save them from reproach, at the expense of their master); this, however, he would say, that if in the situation of the archbishop of Canterbury, who must in this first instance, be made responsible to the country for the omission, he had been so desired to act, he would have thrown the book in the king's face before he would

1537
have consented to give his sanction to an act so contrary to law, to humanity, and justice. The noble lords opposite should have trampled the seals of office under foot before they should have given their consent to the bringing this measure before parliament. But a household administration they began, and a household administration they would end. He knew not what the end of these wretched proceedings would be, but they could only serve to disgust the country. He was not superstitious, but he should almost say, that there were signs observable in the natural as well as the moral world. He did not blame the attorney-general for the charges which he had brought forward; he was instructed to do so, but there was, no doubt, a mass of foul and unsupported charges brought by him against the Queen. They must remember, that those charges against the Queen, were ushered in by thick clouds and storms, and concluded in the darkness of an eclipse; whereas, the able Defence commenced under the influence of the brightest sun which shed its beams on the eloquent pleader. So it was in the moral and political world; clouds were now gathering that seemed big with thunder.
"Good things of day begin to droop and drowze,
"And night's black agents to their work do rouse."
The sound part of the country began to droop under the malignant influence of these proceedings, and those "black agents," whoever they were, that delighted in the misfortunes of their country, would now show themselves. What could put an end to this? A breath had created, and a breath might destroy the bill. It was impossible to anticipate the joy which the destruction of the bill would diffuse throughout the country, nor would it be confined to this country alone: the satisfaction would be extended to France—the note of joy would be prolonged beyond the Pyrennees, to Spain and Portugal, and Sicily. Why to those countries in particular? Because they were free. If there were any countries that would feel for the fate of the bill, they were only Russia and Germany. Would it be lamented by the House, that, while despotic courts hung their heads, the free-born of all nations would rejoice at the rejection of the bill? They were daily praying heaven in that House, that
1538
they might be "not led by private interest, prejudices, and partial affections." This was their prayer every morning; and why?—but that nature was frail, and that the heart "was deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." He prayed them to put aside considerations of interest; and he would conjure them almost on his knees, to deal in the case of this unfortunate and persecuted woman, and, he would add, this magnanimous, and liberal-minded person—they would do as they would wish to be done to themselves, to their wives, and their dearest daughters, under the circumstances of so dreadful a prosecution.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, it was not his intention to trouble their lordships by going at all into the mass of evidence which had been brought under their consideration. The situation in which he felt himself placed, was that of a member of the House of Peers, acting in the double capacity of a legislator and a judge. Considering himself as placed in that situation, he begged, before he gave his vote, to have the grounds on which he formed that vote distinctly understood. He would shortly state the impression made upon his mind by the evidence. Of that evidence he would say, that much of it had been contradicted; much stood on loose grounds; but other parts, he was sorry to say, stood on a firmer foundation. The effect of the whole was calculated to create a strong suspicion respecting the subject of their inquiry; but having stated that, he felt it necessary to consider the nature of the evidence. Far from him was the intention of adopting the prejudice out of doors, that because a person was a foreigner, he ought not to be believed on his oath. Such a prejudice was unworthy of any civilized country. But, when they found an extraordinary case built upon foreign evidence, and that obtained in an unusual manner, a certain degree of doubt was created; and the more so, because many parts of the depositions of the witnesses, he had reason to know, were not brought into the view of the House. If evidence was given on the trial of a person for events in England, they could have any doubts that had arisen cleared up in four and twenty hours. But respecting foreign evidence, a certain degree of doubt must arise in the mind. He went no further than this. He had no right to charge any witness with falsehood, unless it were proved upon him at

1539
the bar. He wished he was as clear as to the perfect innocence of the Queen, as he was as to the impolicy of passing this bill. The bill was now composed of two parts, a clause of divorce and a clause of degradation; and it was understood that the first was not to be pressed. But as a legislator, he was now bound to consider the effect of the bill. He regretted both the cause of the bill, and that it should have been brought before them at all, particularly in its present shape. He conceived that if any thing in the shape of the bill passed, it would cause the greatest discontent among the people. He was persuaded, that whatever the feeling was at present, the good sense of the country was such that it would appreciate the character of every individual in public life in the way it deserved. That would have been the case as to the Queen, if these proceedings had never commenced; and, if any thing could prevent the good sense of the country from being exercised, it would be a measure which held up the illustrious individual as a persecuted woman. There was now a vast mass of evidence before them, and it had been sent through the country. Let the country judge of that evidence, and he would take upon himself to say that its judgment would be correct. He never saw it fail in the course of the experience of his life. He did not think that it was wrong for the ministers to have taken some steps on the information which had been laid before them. At least, he he thought, that whichever way they determined to act, there were so many difficulties that they might be excused for erring if they had committed an error. He thought this allowance was to be made for them, and if there had been a different set of men in the administration, he hoped he should have had the liberality to do them the same justice. When he stated that he should vote against the bill, he trusted it would be understood that he did not do so from the alarm or the agitation of the moment. He had lived in times of agitation, and he had lived to see agitations subside. He therefore was not disposed to feel unusual alarm at that agitation; but he voted against the bill, on the conviction that the just feeling of the country would be better evinced, by leaving it free to operate, without the irritation which would be excited by passing such a bill as this.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid, that
1540
before he proceeded to state his opinion upon the question under their consideration, he could not abstain from noticing some observations which had just fallen from the noble earl. What was the practical conclusion to which the noble earl proposed to bring the House? If the illustrious person was not innocent in the noble earl's opinion, why did he not state what measure he would recommend in lieu of this bill? Were their lordships to relinquish at once their deliberate voice upon so grave a subject, to what the noble earl was pleased to call the judgment of the public; but which might be more aptly denominated, that state of popular violence and irritation, which prevailed at the present moment? To such a spirit of intemperance he was not, for one, prepared to submit. For the opinions of the English people he felt the greatest possible respect; but he had at that moment a duty to perform, which he was not prepared to sacrifice to the cry which had been so industriously excited from without. And surely, if the noble earl continued to think this a case of strong suspicion, there was no other course so proper to take, as that of reading the bill a second time, with an intention of going into, a committee.—He would have been happy to have followed the other noble earl (Grosvenor) through his argument, if he had not been somewhat apprehensive of the long journey through which it would have become necessary for him to have accompanied the noble earl. Not satisfied with having pursued his course from one extremity to the other of this our terrestrial world, from pole to pole; the noble earl had taken a trip to the celestial regions; he had visited the Sun and the Moon, and had ended in an eclipse [a laugh!]. But when, upon his return from those distant parts, the noble earl appeared to have lost his temper, when he had proceeded to trample the great seal under his feet, and had appointed the lord archbishop of Canterbury his deputy to throw the Liturgy in his majesty's face, lord D. was apprehensive of meddling at all with the noble earl and his argument.—Before he proceeded to state his reasons why he should give his vote for the bill, he should not go into an examination of the whole mass of evidence; but he thought it right to mention, what part of it he put entirely out of his consideration. He did not call to his aid the testimony of Majoochi, nor

1541
the woman Demont—he said nothing of the evidence of Sacchi, nor the execrable witness Cuchi—nor would he rest on Barbara Kress, both on account of the manner in which she was brought to give her evidence, and from the manner in which a witness who had been called to contradict her had been subtracted. He would not presume to give an opinion on the rest of the evidence; but he would state only the facts which influenced his judgment. There was the less left for him to say, on account of the very able speech of his noble friend on the cross bench (lord Lauderdale). He fully concurred with his noble friend in his opinion with respect to the elevation of Bergami from a menial situation, the promotion of so many of his family, and his ascent from that low situation to be the companion of his mistress. Looking to that circumstance, to the familiarities which followed, to the fact of her royal highness not only conferring an order on him herself, but procuring other orders and titles for him, and purchasing an estate for his use, he could only draw one conclusion. There were, besides these, some intermediate circumstances, certain little familiarities which were not before noticed, such as putting a chain round Bergami's neck, while yet in his courier's dress, and giving him her portrait. These were not important circumstances in themselves; but, when taken in connexion with the rest of her royal highness's conduct, they cooperated to show what sort of familiarity it was which subsisted between her and this man. Putting all the other circumstances out of the case, he thought that sufficient was proved, with respect to her royal highness sleeping under the tent in the polacre, to establish the fact of adulterous intercourse; but, when this fact was added to all the previous circumstances, he thought it could leave no doubt on the minds of any of their lordships. Here they found, by the evidence, that this man and his mistress were under the tent all the nights and the most of every day for five weeks. This he thought, if no adulterous connexion existed before, when taken with the previous familiarities, could not leave a shadow of doubt on the minds of any of their lordships. He could not, indeed, conceive how any noble lord, after these five weeks of cohabitation (for such he must call it) could have a doubt that an adulterous intercourse then had taken
1542
place.—The noble lord then adverted to the evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo, several extracts from which he read, to show the kind of familiarity which existed between her royal highness and Bergami. It had been said, that a ship like the polacre was not a situation in which her royal highness would have chosen to carry on an adulterous intercourse, if she had been so inclined. Now, he contended, that such a situation was one where she could have carried on that intercourse in greater security. She had hired the ship; it was solely for her use, and all the persons in it were, for the time, her servants, from whom she could not expect interruption. Indeed, this seemed to be the opinion of those on board; for Gargiulo sent his mate and others away from that part of the vessel where her royal highness was, that they might not observe her conduct.—One observation more with respect to this tent. Their lordships knew that many cases of adultery depended upon a single fact; but how different was the present? Here the parties were together for six months. He did not mean to charge the adulterous intercourse for the whole of this time; but from all the circumstances, it must be inferred, that it had been carried on for some time, and that it was not curiosity alone which had induced her royal highness to undertake the voyage. He next referred to the evidence of Gargiulo, where he spoke of receiving orders as to the closing of the tent in the daytime, when Bergami was lying on his back on the small bed, and also to having seen Bergami come out of it in about a quarter of an hour after. Now, there were Schiavini and others present on this occasion; and yet, though those persons might have been called to disprove the fact, not one of them appeared. It was also proved by Gargiulo, that on a particular occasion, when he saw her royal highness stooping over the bed of Bergami, he sent the mate, Paturzo, away from the place, and divided the others of the crew in different. directions, that they also might not observe what was passing. Did not those circumstances prove, that her royal highness had selected the polacre as a place where she was sure not to be liable to interruption?—His lordship next called the attention of the House to the evidence of Birollo, which corroborated the evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo. He contended, that, to the evidence of these men there was no other ob-

1543
jection than that of the amount of the compensation they were to receive for coming here. But he maintained, that they were not paid more than the circum-stances of their situation required, and that the amount of what they received afforded no contradiction to their testimony.—Their lordships, then, had the witnesses in support of the bill; but, had they no witness who spoke to sleeping under the tent on the other side? There was the declaration of lieut. Hownam of his belief that Bergami slept under the tent. Now, with respect to Hownam, he never saw any witness more reluctant in giving his testimony. He admitted that he was under great obligations to her royal highness. He knew the value of the point to which he was asked; and, in proportion to his knowledge of its value, was his reluctance in admitting it. The fact was, however, admitted by him; and, looking to his evidence, in conjunction with what was previously sworn, it was impossible to doubt that an adulterous intercourse had taken place. Here was clearly proved a long process of adulterous intercourse; the parties sleeping under the same tent for five weeks; the tent closed, and no one attempting to disturb those within. Who, he asked, could doubt that, when it was so closed, it was not for a criminal purpose? No doubt being on his mind of her majesty's guilt, he should vote for the bill. He could not help saying, that if his majesty's ministers had not brought this case under the consideration of parliament, they would have incurred a most serio is responsibility. Upon the conduct of the case, on the part of the Queen's counsel, he could not forbear from making a few comments. Through that conduct their lordships had been for about three or four days engaged in trying the Milan commission. Upon the subject of that commission he did not mean to express an opinion; but he felt it right to suppose, that any public body had done its duty until some effectual charge were made out against them. A good deal of animadversion had been indulged in with respect to the origin of this prosecution, and it had repeatedly been asked, who was the prosecutor? But, in reply to that question, he would return this plain answer, that in the present, as well as in all other cases of delinquency, the government was the prosecutor. He agreed with those who said that the public mind was much agitated upon this subject; but he was of
1544
opinion that it would soon be pacified. Their lordships had been told, that the public had already decided upon this question; but notwithstanding his disposition to defer to public opinion, he must say, that he could not yield to the decision of those who had pronounced their verdict before the case was tried; for, from the moment of the Queen's arrival in this country, addresses had been sent to her majesty, containing the most confident assertion of her innocence, with the most severe reprobation of her accusers. But their lordships had been told by the counsel for the Queen, that such was the fervour of the public feeling upon this subject, that if they pronounced a judgment against his client, it should be the last judgment they ever pronounced. Such a threat was, however, so ridiculous, that he hardly thought it would have been addressed to any reasonable persons. At what period but the present, was a regular philippic against the King ever pronounced and tolerated, at the bar of his court of parliament? But here a comparison had been instituted, and a parallel drawn by the learned counsel, between our present gracious sovereign, and Nero, the most execrable tyrant of antiquity. Was libel, the most gross and pointed, ever recognised on any former occasion, as a legitimate means of defence, in the hands of an advocate? Turning with disgust from the picture which the learned gentleman had presented to them, it was to the unexampled triumphs of his majesty's reign that the eyes of a grateful people would be directed. In him, they would recognise the head, and main spring of that powerful confederacy which had put usurpation down, and restored legitimate succession, and given peace to Europe. That great machine, the British army, had grown to maturity since his majesty had taken into his hands the helm of the state—under the assiduous care of his majesty's royal brother, and led on to triumphs unexampled in the annals of British warfare, by the gallant and distinguiseed duke in the blue ribband.
Earl Greysaid:—My lords, it is with the utmost regret that I find myself compelled to differ upon this occasion from my noble friend who has just sat down, as well as from my noble friend on the cross-bench. I have been anxious to hear my noble friends, as well as other noble lords on the same side, before I rose to address you, because I know that their sentiments must have

1545
great weight with your lordships, and also because I felt it desirable to ascertain those sentiments for the information of my own judgment. If the question before your lordships were not of such extraordinary importance, I should have felt reluctant, for various reasons, to offer myself to your attention. But I have an imperative duty to discharge, and I shall now proceed to state the grounds upon which I think myself called upon to vote against the second reading of this bill. In the first place, without meaning any incivility to my noble friend who has just addressed you, I beg leave to dismiss the topics with which he concluded his address to your lordships. I must say, that if any thing had fallen from the counsel at the bar, to whom my noble friend referred, which was unfit for them to use or for you to hear—if they made use of any inflammatory or unbecoming language—or if they referred to any topics inconsistent with the loyalty which they owe to their sovereign, or with the respect that is due to this House—if they trespassed on the bounds of their duty to your lordships and the country, they should not have been allowed, for a moment, to proceed in such a course. My noble friend has represented that which I apprehend others are not likely so to represent, which others indeed, did not so understand. But it is not for me to defend the conduct of counsel at the bar, who should, if irregular, have been immediately called to order. But there was another topic in my noble friend's speech to which I think it proper to advert. He complained of the learned lord on the woolsack, observing that the learned lord had disappointed him in not taking that large, luminous and comprehensive view of the evidence, for the instruction and guidance of the judgment of the House, which undoubtedly no man was more competent to take than that learned lord. Few, perhaps, would be more eager than himself to hear what the learned lord had to say upon the subject. But my noble friend is mistaken in supposing that such a duty as that which he describes was imposed upon the learned lord on this occasion, for it belongs to him only to state his own opinion upon the case, with the grounds of that opinion, if he think proper, as he is not here as a presiding judge called upon to address a jury. He is here only as a peer among peers, and as a juror among jurors. As a judge, too, in this case, he is called upon
1546
to defend his own opinions, if necessary; but he is by no means required to perform that duty of summing up for the guidance of a jury, which belongs to a judge in any of the courts below. Thus much I have thought it necessary to state in justification of the conduct of the learned lord on the woolsack.
I shall now, my lords, proceed to consider the question before you, with all the calmness, judgment, and impartiality in my power. That question is, whether the charges preferred in this case are so made out by the evidence, as to justify the infliction of the severe penalties proposed in the bill upon the highest subject in the realm, and that question, I assure your lordships, I approach with the greatest anxiety and distress of mind. At the—outset of these proceedings I stated pretty fully my objections to the justice and policy of bills of this description. But I did not go the length of some of my noble friends in maintaining that there was no possible case in which a bill of Pains and Penalties, or a bill of Attainder could be justifiable. No, my lords, I have read the history of the constitution with different impressions, and I agree with the learned lord on the woolsack, that in the best times since the Revolution, precedents may be found for the adoption of such measures, as well as that cases may exist which may render their adoption necessary. But then such bills are only to be regarded as the indispensable exercise of parliamentary power for the protection of the people. Such bills are indeed so objectionable in principle, and so inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, that nothing but the safety of the state, nothing but a great public exigency, nothing short of paramount necessity could call for their adoption. Can any man maintain that the present is a case of that necessity, or that a bill of Pains and Penalties should be founded upon such a case, especially while another course lay open—I mean that of Impeachment? That this course would have been more constitutional and just in the present case, I have already endeavoured to show. I have, indeed, fully expressed my opinion upon the subject, and I have recorded that opinion in a protest upon your lordships' Journals. I will not, therefore, re-state my arguments on the present occasion, but I cannot forbear shortly noticing the observations of the learned lord

1547
(Redesdale) which I must confess I heard with considerable surprise; for that learned lord ought to be good authority upon such a subject. And yet he, who was seven years in parliament during the trial of Warren Hastings, seriously maintained that no impeachment could be preferred for any offence but where a venue could be laid for an indictment. The learned lord, indeed, laboured strongly to establish that position. But I differ totally from the learned lord, being of opinion, that impeachment is peculiarly meant to meet those extraordinary cases of public delinquency which are not provided for by the established law of the land, and which are not therefore cognizable in the courts below—I mean those state misdemeanors or crimes which can properly and constitutionally be met by impeachment alone. But the learned lord on the woolsack has urged that argument in this discussion which has been so refuted; namely, that a bill of Pains and Penalties affords more advantage to the accused than an impeachment. That is a proposition to which I never can assent. The learned lord indeed, in pressing it, seems to be as ignorant of what is passing about him, as the learned lord on the cross-bench showed himself in stating, that the public were utterly indifferent about this measure; or who can doubt, that, if an impeachment had been the course' originally proposed in the House of Commons, there might, or probably would have been a very different result? The House had indeed heard something tantamount to an admission upon this subject, from the noble earl who introduced this bill; for, upon a proposal being made at my suggestion, that instead of proceeding by a bill of Pains and Penalties, the case should be left open to impeachment, what did that noble earl state? Why, that it was important, and necessary to decide for the bill, as a decision against it might prove equivalent to a declaration that there should be no proceeding at all. What, then, was the inference? Why, that the noble earl apprehended, that from the situation and temper of the Commons, if the bill were not adopted, this House would never be called upon to come to any decision on the subject. It is evident, therefore, that 'whatever might be the advantage to the accused in other cases, in proceeding by a bill of Pains and Penalties rather than by impeachment, it cannot be pretended that
1548
any such advantage was at all likely to exist in the present case. But I doubt whether such an advantage exists in any case. A proceeding of the description before the House, might be more favourable to guilt in affording it an additional chance of escape; but I am very doubtful whether it could be in any degree more favourable to innocence in affording it any additional protection. I am convinced indeed, that no such advantage or favour exists in the present case. For what may be the effect of the proceeding before your lordships with respect to the accused? This House may decide in favour of the bill upon mere doubtful points, and then the accused is sent to a second, trial, and additional evidence may be adduced, which her own defence here may have opened to her accusers, and the whole process of the investigation may be gone into over again before another court. Now, considering that the charges refer to a state offence, and that all the influence of government is used in this prosecution, I appeal to the candour of any man who hears me, whether such a mode of proceeding must not be regarded as most materially disadvantageous to the accused? Your lordships are besides, by this course of proceeding, submitting your judgment to the House of Commons. To that, however, the learned lord has replied by stating the practice in all bills of divorce which originate in this House. But, upon what ground could private divorce bills be assimilated to the present case, which was a charge preferred by the state, and in which all the interests, the passions, and the prejudices of the government are deeply involved? But among the anomalies of the proposed proceeding, it will be recollected, that while we possess the right of examining witnesses upon oath, and enjoy the assistance of the learned Judges, this bill, if agreed to by your lordships, will be sent to the House of Commons, as a court of appeal, which, possesses no such right of administering oaths, and which cannot enjoy the assistance of the Judges. This bill, you must also remember, will, if sent to the Commons, encounter the risk of rejection; and in such an extraordinary case, what, can be more pregnant with danger, than, a dissention between the two Houses of Parliament? In the present state of the country, the consequences of such a dissention may be frightful.
But, I will not dwell further upon this

1549
topic, I thought it my duty to deprecate the introduction of this bill at all. But, as your lordships thought proper to come to a contrary determination, I made up my mind to decide upon this bill according to the evidence. I felt, that if the charges against the Queen were made out by the evidence, I had no alternative but to vote for this bill, or to allow her to occupy the throne with a character so tainted and stigmatised by the establishment of such charges, as must serve to degrade the dignity of the Crown, and the honour of the country. I was, however, determined not to decide against the Queen unless such a case were made out against her as must render it impossible for her to retain her station with dishonour to the state. I cannot, perhaps, describe such a case better than in the words of the preamble to the bill, to which my learned friend (lord Erskine) was referring yesterday, when he was interrupted in such a manner as must afflict every individual who witnessed the melancholy scene when he was interrupted in the performance of a duty upon this question, which was so admirably consistent with the principles which have actuated the whole tenor of his glorious life.
It is stated, my lords, in the preamble to the bill, that her royal highness whilst the said Bartolomeo Bergami was in her said service, conducted herself towards the said Bergami, and in other respects, both in public and private, with indecent and offensive familiarity and freedom, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and adulterous intercourse with the said Bergami, which continued for a long period of time, during her royal highness's residence abroad; by which conduct, great scandal and dishonour have been brought upon your majesty's family and this kingdom." Such, my lords, is the case which I required to have made out before I could satisfy my mind as to the propriety of voting for that degradation of the Queen which the present bill has in view; for I could not reconcile it to my judgment to vote for this bill if a case were made out of simple adultery. And that case must be made out by the most clear, unequivocal, and irresistible evidence; for I felt, that in proportion as the rank of the accused was exalted, in proportion as the penalties to be inflicted were severe, in proportion as the proceeding itself was unusual, and as it
1550
departed from all the principles of law and justice, the charges against her should be made out of the most satisfactory and most conclusive proof. I say that no inference, however strong; no suspicion, however forcible; no presumption, however striking; no testimony, however connected, ought to be held conclusive, when coming from witnesses of doubtful and suspected character. I say further, that not even the strongest moral conviction of guilt, nothing short of the most clear, indisputable, incontrovertible facts, will justify a vote against the illustrious lady now accused at your bar.
Why then I shall proceed to investigate this case as it is now admitted to stand by those who are its warmest advocates and supporters. I do so, however, with a considerable degree of surprise, at finding that I should be called on to argue such a case upon such an occasion, and with a view before me of the consequences which it is likely to produce. But before I enter upon this part of the case, I shall take leave to ask one question. I ask, then, whether, if on the conclusion of the attorney-general's opening speech, it could have been foreseen that the disgraceful scene at Naples; the disgraceful proceedings at Genoa; the circumstances stated to have taken place at the house of general Pino, the proceedings at Trieste; if it could have been foreseen that the scenes at Carlsruhe, the scenes described to have taken place at Scharnitz, the many other filthy and beastial acts which have been described; acts, the very mention of which has endangered the morals and revolted the feelings of the country; if, I say, it could, at the conclusion of the attorney-general's speech, have been foreseen that the whole of this evidence was to be abandoned by those who supported the bill; and if it could have been imagined, in addition to all this, that the whole case in support of the bill was to rest on the simple fact of the polacre, then, I ask the noble earl opposite, whether he would either have laid the papers on your lordships table, or have instituted the present proceeding? I am sure that no man who knows the nature of the investigation which has been gone into within the last forty-five days of the inquiry, will pretend to say that the charge against the Queen was to be rested upon the single case of the polacre. My lords, it is the solitary case upon which we are now called upon to vote in

1551
support of this bill. I know that there are other views and circumstances in this case, which are looked to by some of my noble friends on the other side. They seem to reject a great part of the testimony individually, yet they are determined to take it in the aggregate as a make-weight, in order to assist the other facts of the case. Now, my lords, my noble friend (Lauderdale), to whom I mean more particularly to apply myself (because he has made the most powerful and impressive speech), has complained, and with justice, of having been assailed with clamour, I know that such clamour does exist—I lament that it does—but to such clamour I am no party. I trust my noble friend will do me the justice to believe that a knowledge of his character, derived from 36 years acquaintance, cannot be altered by the circumstance of my having the misfortune to differ with him on this case. I give to my noble friend that latitude which I claim for myself—that of acting according to the feelings of my conscience on the question before me. I know that my noble friend carries with him into every question which he espouses a warmth and earnestness which may perhaps be liable to misconstruction by those who do not know him so well as I do. I give my noble friend every credit for using his best efforts to elicit truth, and attain the ends of justice. But, while I do this justice to my noble friend, I am bound on the present occasion to differ widely and materially from him.
My noble friend began by looking to the original situation of Bergami, and entered into details and deductions from the circumstance of his advancement and the advancement of his family by her majesty. What he has stated with respect to the advancement of Bergami I am most ready to admit. I admit that Bergami originally filled the situation of courier to her royal highness; though at the same time from the evidence, it appears, that his family had enjoyed better fortunes. This fact has been confirmed by what has hitherto been uncontradicted, namely, that Berganai's sister, the countess Oldi, was married to an Italian nobleman. It has been admitted too, that Bergami, though filling the situation of courier, was a man of manners superior to his situation, and that when exalted to a higher office, he did not appear unworthy of his preferment.
1552
I admit, that this sudden exaltation of Bergami, coupled with other circumstances, was of a suspicious nature; but in making this admission, I must vindicate the noble earl (Harewood) from the interpretation given to his speech by my noble friend who spoke last. The noble earl, if I rightly understood him, meant to say, as I have said, that the circumstance of elevating Bergami and his family was of a very suspicious nature; but that though this was of a suspicious nature, still it was not sufficient ground upon which to vote in support of the bill. My lords, I have said that the circumstances attending Bergami's elevation are suspicious; I lament that they are so—I lament her majesty's inattention to the dignity belonging to her high rank and station; but admitting this, I can go no further; there may have been impropriety amounting to suspicion in her majesty's conduct—will that impropriety, will that suspicion stand as proof of guilt? Will such improprieties and such suspicions warrant your lordships in passing a bill like this? But, my lords, admitting this impropriety of conduct, are there no circumstances connected with the then situation of the Queen calculated to mitigate those charges? It may appear paradoxical; but I think that the elevation of such a man as Bergami by the Queen is much less suspicious than the elevation of a man similarly situated, by a lady of less exalted rank. When we recollect that sovereigns are so much exalted above the generality of men—when we see that like persons looking down from lofty mountains, the just proportions of those beneath them are lost and confounded—need we be astonished at any selection which they make? Sovereigns lay claim to the right, as they possess the power, of raising whom they please, however low, to the highest rank and the greatest dignities. I agree with the learned lord on the woolsack, that the circumstance of raising such a person as Bergami to rank and dignity, is very different from that noble elevation to which it is the pride and boast of England to raise men, who have laboriously and honourably toiled in the service of their country. But, my lords, you will find that history, ancient as well as modern, is pregnant with examples of persons having been raised from the lowest to the highest situation, from the mere will and caprice of the sovereign j and it is seldom found in such

1553
cases that the family do not partake in the exaltation. Then, I say, that this circumstance, suspicious as it is, ought to be looked at with considerable qualification. Snperadded to this ought to be considered where the Queen was, and how she was situated when Bergami's preferment took place. Her majesty was then in Italy, a country surrounded by wars, which had shaken society to its base; she was in the daily habit of seeing around her persons who had been raised during that period, from the lowest to the most exalted situations; at the court where she was, she saw that the sovereign (Murat) had been raised from the lowest class of society; she saw too, that a power, with which we are now on terms of alliance, had been exalted from the most obscure origin. Why then, allowing the suspicion attending Bergami's promotion; still, I say, that it is only suspicion. It cannot stand in the place of actual proof; and by actual proof alone can this bill be supported.
Again, my lords, this being so, how stands the case? The Queen is charged with adultery with Bergami, the person whom she has exalted. In order to fix upon her this disgraceful charge, a variety of evidence has been brought forward, some of it of such a nature, that if established by credible witnesses, the case would be proved beyond a doubt. If you can believe the evidence of Majoochi, that the Queen passed twice through his room, in order to get to that of Bergami—if you can believe the evidence of Demont, that Bergami had, at the house of general Pino, passed into the Queen's room, and passed the greater part of the night there; if you can believe that she saw at Catania the Queen pass undressed from Bergami's room to her own in the morning—if you can believe Sacchi's statements of what took place at the Villa Brandi; if your lordships can believe all this, then, I say, there is an end of the case; the facts are decidedly proved, and no opposition can be made to the bill. But, my lords, how does the case stand All those facts are, according to the noble lords who support the bill (except, indeed, the learned lord on the woolsack, who sticks to the case at Catania), to be discarded from your notice. Why was this done, except it was found that the witnesses were not to be credited? But, says my noble friend on the cross-bench, though I admit that there have been some
1554
contradictions to Majoochi, yet I am not prepared to say, that he has not spoken a good deal of truth. Why, my lords, my first answer to this is, that there is no witness, however designedly false and perjured, who may not, in the course of his evidence, speak a great deal of truth upon some occasions; but I say that I cannot even believe the truth from such a witness, unless he be supported by unimpeached testimony. Another noble friend of mine has said, that though the evidence for the bill was such that he could not rely upon any separate testimony, yet he thought the evidence of Majoochi or Demont was not materially damaged. Sacchi, I believe, my noble friend did not attempt to defend. My noble friend, though he could not rely on any separate part of the evidence, is of opinion, that, taken in the aggregate, it formed such a mass of evidence, as, coupled with the polacre scene, must enable any man to pronounce judgment against the Queen. I ask, if this be sound doctrine? I ask if it be ground upon which an ordinary court of justice would go in any case? Where is there an instance where witnesses, so damaged, as to be separately not intitled to credit, have been clubbed together, and by this consolidation a conclusion has been come to against an accused party? Sir Wm. Scott, in the case of Evans v. Evans, said—"Show me in this case that a crime has been committed, and I shall not be at a loss to fix the criminal, having then an actual corpus delicti Show me then, that a crime has been committed, and I shall not be at a loss to fix the criminal; but to take presumptions, in order to swell an equivocal fact, into a criminal fact, is a mode of proceeding of a very different nature, and would be an entire misapplication of the doctrine of presumptions. This fact, then, not being a criminal one upon the face of it, and being subject to three or four different interpretations, all of which are perfectly innocent, I think myself by no means at liberty to say, that I ought, by presumption merely, to make out this fact to be necessarily an act of delinquency." This, my lords, is the true light in which facts of this nature ought to be viewed.
I now come to the evidence on this case. My noble friend on the cross-bench had laid considerable stress on parts of the evidence, though supported by the testimony of Demont alone, and on the

1555
ground that there were several persons who might have been, but who were not, called to disprove the facts, if false. My noble friend, from this circumstance, assumed, that all the uncontradicted statements were true. I agree with the learned lord on the woolsack, with respect to the absence of witnesses, but I think that that doctrine may be carried too far; indeed, I am of opinion, that it has been carried too far in the case before us. It is rather too hard to call on the accused party to disprove statements made by witnesses, upon whose evidence no reliance can be placed, because such witnesses have sworn to facts which might be contradicted; and in default of such contradiction, to take the facts sworn to as established. In one instance the facts stated by Demont could not be contradicted. The facts stated by Demont to have occurred at Catania, could, it is said, be contradicted by Mariette Bron. But did Demont say positively that Mariette was present on that occasion? No; she only said, that she believed Mariette was present when she saw her royal highness come out of Bergami's room with the pillow under her arm. What, then, would have been the use of calling Mariette? She might say that she was quite positive she did not witness the scene described by her sister, but this, it would be urged, was no contradiction. The counsel for the bill would have said, "You have tried to contradict us as far as you can; but Mariette's testimony is uncontradicted, you must call the countess Oldi." How would the case stand with respect to the countess Oldi? She might have sworn that the Queen was in her room during the greater part of the night; but she might have been cross-examined as to this particular night, to which she would find it difficult to answer. It would have been urged, that the Queen might have stolen from her room in the night, or else that the countess Oldi was placed there in order to forward the intrigue, and therefore her testimony was good for nothing. The counsel for the defence have abstained, and I think properly, from calling certain witnesses who were within their reach. Your lordships will find this to have been done for weighty reasons. The learned lord on the woolsack has said, that your lordships have nothing to do with the irritability of nerves of the witnesses. Your lordships must be aware
1556
that Mariette, and the countess Oldi had been all through Italy with her majesty. If either of these witnesses had been called to contradict Demont, it would have been open to the other side to cross-examine them as to the whole case, as to declarations formerly made, and God knows what; and if in such cross-examination, the witness had been caught tripping, even in a single instance, then the lynx-eye of my noble friend on the cross-bench would have seized hold of the fact, and he would have said, here is a witness who has contradicted herself, and therefore, she is totally unworthy of credit!—The absence of a witness under such circumstances, does not allow me to concur in the guilt of the accused party. I say that if I were on a jury and upon my oath, I could not conscientiously pronounce a verdict of guilty on the evidence before me. So much for this part of the case.
Another reason, my lords, why the witnesses in question have not been called in behalf of her majesty is, that it was found that attempts had been made to bribe and corrupt her servants. It was found that Mariette was actually in correspondence with her sister Demont; that this correspondence was carried on in double entendres and under concealment. Is it unnatural, then, that suspicion should be entertained of treachery against the Queen? Is it unnatural, that the Queen's counsel, acting on their own responsibility, should even, in contradiction to her majesty's express wish, abstain from calling those persons? There is also another point in which my noble friend is mistaken: he says, that the counsel for the defence must, from their opening, have contemplated the calling of Mariette to contradict her sister, as to the scene at Catania; but if your lordships will look into the evidence of Demont, you will find, that she does not fix the precise morning, or if she does fix it by saying, that she was on that occasion called upon to assist in dressing, then she contradicts herself; for she says, that she met her royal highness coming out of Bergami's room undressed. So that if she fixes the morning in this manner, she has contradicted herself; and if she has not fixed it, it would be impossible that Mariette could contradict her. There is a further mistake of my noble friend, as to what was said about calling Mariette. The learned counsel for the Queen stated, that Mariette was to be

1557
called to prove her majesty's innocence generally, and not to disprove any particular fact. I do not, however, mean to rest the case upon any statement of counsel.
I now come to the three celebrated witnesses Majoochi, Demont, and Sacchi. First, with respect to Majoochi—my noble friend on the cross-bench, who has handled the evidence of Mr. Hownam with great severity, stated, that the evidence of Majoochi was not materially damaged. I felt much surprised at this statement, after having witnessed six or seven palpable contradictions in that witness. If I were to fix upon any passage of his, in preference to another, which was unworthy of credit, it would be that in which he said, that the Queen passed to Bergami's room by a particular passage, denying that there was any second passage, until it was extracted from him in a manner, which none but a false and perjured witness could evince. I do not rely upon the contradiction of this witness by Carrington. I dismiss Carrington's evidence altogether; but, independently of that, I have other witnesses who have contradicted Majoochi, besides his many contradictions of himself. For instance, his forgetting matters, that it was actually impossible he could forget. He could not remember whether there were sheets on a bed which he had been in the habit of making for a considerable time. He could not remember whore his fellow-servants slept in this or that place. He could, in fifteen or sixteen instances, give the most accurate descriptions of rooms, stair-cases, &c. and yet, in his cross-examination, he could not remember any thing. Is not this sufficient to discredit his testimony? There are other parts of this witness's testimony which I must pass over; such is his description of the noise heard through the deck, and the creaking of the bedsteads, with which I felt disgusted at the time. Your lordships will recollect the glee with which he described the use of the bottle in the carriage. Your lordships will also recollect his examination about his residence in Gloucester. He at first denied that he knew any person of the name of Hughes; but on cross-examination he admitted that he knew the person so well that he used to call him brother. My noble friend seems to think that his sincerity is established by his answer to a question respecting a conversation with
1558
Camera. On that occasion, my noble friend said that Majoochi called out, "Softly, softly; let me explain that story." This, however, is to me no proof of the validity of his testimony; and I say we must dismiss Majoochi as an individual who is unworthy of credit.
Now, I solicit the attention of your lordships to this fact—there is a general suspicion which attaches to the whole of the principal witnesses against the Queen. Those witnesses are Majoochi, Demont, Sacchi, and Restelli, all four, servants discarded from the family of her royal highness—three of them discharged in November, 1817, the other two months after. The whole of the proof brought against her Majesty is confined within the time of their service; and from the year 1817 down to the present time, we have not an atom of evidence—not a breath of suspicion—not a presumption of guilt—not an allegation of improper conduct—much less any direct proof of adultery brought against this unfortunate lady; for unfortunate I must call her, however exalted her rank. All those servants have been dismissed for some offence or other—two of them in possession of secrets which her majesty must know they could produce against her; but still they were dismissed. One of them, Demont, for having stated that which was false, and that which she innocently stated at your lordships' bar to be "effectively not true." It appeared that this woman had been guilty of an improper connexion with Sacchi, for in her letter to her royal highness, she said, that what she had done had been done under the influence of a fatal passion. From the important part which Sacchi played in bringing forward the witness Demont, it was impossible to avoid the suspicion, that those two persons were the foundation and ground-work of this conspiracy. Then, your lordships have seen how Demont has been contradicted with respect to the dress-ball at Naples. There was opposed to her the testimony of sir W. Gell and Mr. Craven, men who are above all suspicion. They stated distinctly, that the dress of her royal highness was removed as far as possible from indecency or nakedness. Sir W. Gell, indeed, from his knowledge of antiquity, has referred your lordships to a model, with which almost every body must be acquainted; and the dress of which, so far from being indecent, is quite the reverse. My lords,

1559
I am afraid that in this country your lordships have too frequently witnessed in fashionable society, exhibitions of no very decorous description; but from which, nevertheless, you would be very reluctant to infer the slightest imputation of guilt. If this proceeding should produce no other good—and it has produced many evils—I trust it will have the effect of correcting the indelicacy to which I allude, and of showing to the fair, the advantage which they would in every respect derive from the concealment, rather than from the display of their charms. I certainly coincide with an author, who says, in a language with which we have lately been very familiar:—"Quanto si mostra meno tanto piÙ bella."
There is, my lords, another part of the evidence to which I feel it necessary to call your attention—I mean that part where Dement states, that Bergami was present at her royal highness's change of dress at the masquerade. I am prepared to state, that I felt so shocked, so disgusted, with this part of the case, that even had no evidence been given by sir W. Gell in disproof, I could not have believed it. What! Is it likely, that her royal highness, who, as it was said, had nightly opportunities of being with Bergami—was it possible, that she, for the purpose of gratifying a passion which she had so many better opportunities of gratifying, should have chosen such a moment, and with Demont placed as a sentinel of her guilt? But the evidence of sir W. Gell put the matter beyond a doubt. He clearly stated, that the room was an open one, through which persons passed indiscriminately during the night. When your lordships have seen facts deposed to with such malignant purposes, can any one doubt either their object or their falsehood? Again, we have the evidence of Majoochi contradicted by Dr. Holland, who dressed Bergami's foot; Majoochi on that occasion swore that only her royal highness was present. It has been said by my noble friend, that this part of the case is not material. Why, then, are such facts introduced? Are they not introduced in order to show the improper familiarity which existed between Bergami and her majesty? When your lordships find this witness contradicted by such a man as Dr. Holland on a material fact, can you for a moment doubt that he is unworthy of belief?
With respect to sacchi, his statements
1560
of what occurred at the Villa Brandi, as well as his equivocations respecting his change of names, prove him to be totally unworthy of credit. How does Sacchi stand? He swore he rode courier on the journey from Rome to Sinigaglia; he swore, that in the morning he rode up to the carriage of the princess, and drew the curtain. What is the contradiction to this? First, it appeared, that he did not ride courier at all on that journey; next, it was proved by Olivieri, that Sacchi was not there—that Carlo Forti attended as courier; this was further proved by the evidence of Vassali. But the most complete contradiction is, that her royal highness rode in an English landaulet, with glasses and spring blinds inside. It is impossible, then, that Sacchi's evidence can be true. The case, as far as depended on Sacchi, has been completely blown out of court. The story of Adam and Eve received a direct contradiction; so also Guggiari's testimony was directly contradicted, though my learned friend on the cross-bench does not admit it. My noble friend not only argued, that one man was not contradicted, because another was able to see what escaped his observation; but with that acuteness which enables him to detect the minutest circumstance against the Queen, while he overlooks every thing in her favour, he discovered that the boatman who contradicted Guggiari was blind. My noble friend asked the witness whether he had not had a complaint in his eyes. Undoubtedly, the man replied that lie had. But that complaint discovered by my noble friend, and by nobody else, arose after the period to which the evidence in contradiction of Guggiari referred. But how does the evidencestand? Guggiari swears, that he rowed the princess in a boat on the Lake of Como, and that he saw Bergami kiss her, and he vouches other persons who were at that time present in the boat. And here it is lamentable to observe the description of persons who have been produced as witnesses throughout the whole of this proceeding. Plasterers, boatmen, carpenters, bricklayers' labourers—every body, in short, but an Englishman, and a credible witness—the meanest labourers, the refuse of Italian rabble constitute the mass of the witnesses who have been brought to your lordships' bar. Guggiari states, that he rowed upon the bench next to the princess and Bergami, and he vouches Lago Maggiore as the man who sat im-

1561
mediately before him. Lago Maggiore is called; and although he could see distinctly into the cabinet, he says, he could see no such thing as is affirmed to have taken place by Guggiari. There is one general remark which applies to the testimony of all these witnesses, that the facts to which they speak are extremely doubtful and suspicious in themselves. Thus Galdini, the mason, states that he had twenty or thirty men at work, and that in going to look after the agent, he went accidently to the bed-room of Bergami, or the princess, and saw them kissing each other. It is suggested to me, that it was not the bed-room of the princess, but an outer apartment; at all events, it was a room said to be conveniently situated for their mutual intercourse; and is it at all probable that he should have gone to this apartment to look for the agent, instead of proceeding directly to his office? Evidence of this sort should be looked at with the greatest suspicion, especially when there is so much ground for believing, that it has been procured by sinister means. It is in proof that Riganti was the person who went to Restelli, and Restelli deposes to all those indecent and disgusting particulars, which I will not repeat. It is in proof, also, that Riganti, was the person who went to Pomi, and suggested to him that he might make a large sum of money, if he had ever seen Bergami put his hand up the princess's petticoats. Here, then, we find the same person who had gone to Restelli endeavouring to suborn Pomi, though in the latter instance his attempt was unsuccessful, and Pomi had integrity enough to say, that the princess was a good lady, and that he had never observed any thing improper in her conduct. All this kind of testimony, tainted as it is by such strong circumstances of suspicion, I must discard from the case as totally undeserving of credit.
Another circumstance not less suspicious than those to which I have directed your lordships' attention, is, that all these witnesses should have been so abstemious, 60 prudent, so reserved, that they never once have mentioned any of these extraordinary facts till the proof of them became profitable, and they were called upon to give evidence by the Milan commission. It cannot be too strongly pressed upon your lordships' consideration, that the evidence is confined to persons of the lowest description, to such rabble as you have seen at your bar, and that,
1562
with the exception of the two English witnesses, not a single person of respectability has been produced as a witness for the prosecution. The Attorney-general has attempted to explain this by arguing that the Queen would naturally be on her guard before Englishmen, and persons of rank, and he has been followed in the same line of argument by my noble friend on the cross-bench. I cannot admit that this is a sound, a liberal, or even a candid argument. Was the Queen unaware that her paths were beset, that she was surrounded by spies, that a commission was set on foot, whose great object was, to effect her ruin, ever ready to put the worst construction upon her most innocent or indifferent actions? Is it probable that she should have abstained from every thing approaching to indecorous-conduct in the presence of those who were least likely to betray her—while, before these low, mercenary wretches, she indulged, without caution or restraint, in all those acts of profligacy and licentiousness with which she is charged? My lords, I cannot suppose that your lordships will attach the slightest weight to evidence of this description. My noble friend has made some observations upon the testimony of captain Briggs; but he will permit me to observe, that he has not taken a candid view of that part of the evidence. It is true that there is one circumstance of suspicion stated by captain Briggs—that the cabinets had been so altered by the direction of her majesty, as to make the access to the room of Bergami more easy than it was before. But my noble friend entirely overlooks what is stated by captain Briggs in her majesty's favour. Captain Briggs stated, that he slept in the dining-room through which Bergami must have passed; that no one could have passed through the room without running a great risk of being heard by him; that he was subject to all calls; and that the officer of the watch had constant access to his cabin, whenever any thing occurred of which he wished to inform him. He stated also, that there was a sentry constantly placed at his door; and, as to the conduct of the Queen, he never observed any impropriety in it, or any thing which was in the smallest degree calculated to excite suspicion.
I now come to that part of the case which requires the most serious attention

1563
—I mean that which is alleged to have taken place on board the polacre. My noble friend upon the cross-bench relies upon the fact of Bergami sleeping under the tent. Now the same general observation applies to this as to the other parts of the case—that it is proved only by the evidence of Majoochi and other witnesses, whose testimony has been contradicted upon the most material points. I am willing, however, to admit, for the purposes of this inquiry, that it has been sufficiently proved, or if not proved, that it cannot be readily denied, that at Aum and during the journey to Jerusalem, Bergami slept in the same tent with her majesty, and that he also slept under the tent on board the polacre. In the first place, there is no sufficient proof that he slept under the tent, and if there were, there is no proof that other persons did not also sleep in the same situation. But supposing the fact of his having slept under the tent to be sufficiently established, it then becomes a question, whether that fact affords such a fair inference of guilt as would justify your lordships in pronouncing a verdict of guilty. I cannot help thinking that my noble friend, in referring to the evidence of lieut. Hownam, animadverted with too much severity upon the conduct of that gentleman, relying, as my noble friend does, upon his testimony, for the proof of the feet upon which he mainly depends. I could have wished that my noble friend had viewed the evidence of lieut. Hownam with somewhat of the same liberality which he applied so unsparingly to the testimony of Majoochi. Looking at the manner in which lieut. Hownam declared that he did not know where Bergami slept, and afterwards stated his belief upon the subject, I do not conceive that any candid or honourable man will think, upon an impartial consideration of his testimony, that he discovered any disposition to prevaricate. Throughout the whole of his examination he was repeatedly cautioned to distinguish between what he knew of his own knowledge, and what he knew only by hearsay, or was merely matter of belief. Was it not natural, then, that when he was asked whether he knew where Bergami slept, he should have answered in the negative, though when he was afterwards questioned as to his belief, a question which, if I
1564
remember rightly, was not permitted to be asked in the examination in chief, he answered without the slightest hesitation, and without showing the least desire to throw any doubt upon the matter? In a subsequent part of his examination, he accounted for his belief, by stating that he once saw the Queen come down with Bergami upon the occasion of a squall off the coast of Caramania. I think, therefore, that, notwithstanding the contradiction which one part of his testimony receives from captain Briggs, lieut. Hownam does not deserve the severe denunciation of my noble friend, and I cannot help regretting, that my noble friend, who has examined the evidence for the prosecution with so much tenderness, should have thought fit to apply such an expression as a perjured wretch to this witness. As to lieut. Flinn, he contradicted himself so directly as to Schiavini's writing the letter, that I think we are bound to lay his testimony out of the case. Not that I think the man meant to give false testimony; he could have no possible motive in concealing that particular fact. I am inclined to impute his inconsistencies to a confusion of intellect, rather than to wilful misrepresentation; but from whatever cause they arose, they ought undoubtedly to exclude his testimony in the consideration of the case before your lordships. It is somewhat curious to observe, that my noble friend is ready to admit the testimony of lieut. Hownam, as to a fact in which he is directly at variance with his favourite witness Gargiulo; for lieut. Hownam says, he believed Flinn commanded the ship, whereas Gargiulo stated positively that he bad himself the command of the vessel. It has been said, that as soon as the admission was made by lieut. Hownam, that he believed Bergami slept under the tent, the whole character of the defence was changed, and it was then stated by the counsel for her majesty, that this fact made a part of their case. In that extraordinary display of eloquence and reason with which her majesty's defence was opened, and to which I listened with the greatest attention, I certainly do not remember having heard it stated, that this fact formed a part of the case. I remember, however, that in the opening of the Queen's case, not only was this fact never attempted to be denied, but unless my recollection completely deceives me, Mr. Williams, in the course of the able com-

1565
ments upon the evidence with which he followed up Mr. Brougham's arguments, stated it as a fact which was meant to be admitted. In confirmation of this, it appears from the examination in chief of lieuts. Hownam and Flinn, that no attempt whatever was made to cast a doubt upon the fact of Bergami having slept under the tent. The evidence, then, of five witnesses, supposing it confirmed by the admission of lieut. Hownam, amounts to this, that during five weeks Bergami did sleep under the same tent with the Queen. Now, would your lordships be justified in inferring the guilt of the Queen from this circumstance, and in pronouncing a verdict against her, if this were a common verdict of guilty or not guilty? It does not appear to me that your lordships would be so justified. There was no mystery in this case; no attempt at concealment; it was not the same thing, as if a man had secretly entered the apartment of a woman in the night, while she was in bed, and slept there under circumstances which could lead only to one inevitable conclusion. I admit it to be a circumstance of a suspicious nature, for which the excuses and reasons which have been assigned, do not appear to account satisfactorily; yet it is a circumstance which may have existed, considering how the Queen was situated on board that vessel, consistently with perfect innocence. In the first place, there is the evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo. Now, with respect to the fact of Bergami having slept under the tent, there seems no reason to question the testimony of these witnesses; but it is no less clear that a colour was attempted to be given to that fact. I do not think Paturzo and Gargiulo unsuspicious witnesses. In the first place, they have received a large sum of money, as an inducement to give their evidence in this case, and they were compelled to come over to this country by the British minister, assisted by the minister at Naples. Your lordships were told that Paturzo was sent away by Gargiulo, lest his morals should be endangered by witnessing the scandalous scenes which took place on board the vessel. This modest, delicate, Sicilian skipper, Gargiulo, out of his tender regard for the morals of the simple youth, Paturzo, ordered him away, that his purity, forsooth, might not be corrupted! I say, my lords, the extraordinary compensation which this man received for his loss of time, and his extreme anxiety to merit that reward by
1566
casting imputations upon the Queen, are circumstances which render his testimony liable to the greatest suspicion. One of his answers affords a remarkable proof of his eagerness to thrust in every thing which he thought unfavourable to the Queen. In answer to a question, whether the princess had ordered certain things to be done, he says "The princess commanded, because Pergami commanded it, and she commanded whatever he commanded." This is not all; for the captain's testimony received an additional bias from his quarrel with Bergami, and his disappointment with repect to his profits. It appears that he presented a memorial on this subject to the minister at Naples, and that he renewed his claim in this country. In answer to a question as to these facts, he says, "I received nothing; nay, my minister and the colonel told me that they knew nothing, and that I might go to London, and then see upon this particular." He is asked what colonel he means, and he replies, colonel Browne. So that he was not only receiving 1,000 dollars a month as a compensation for his loss of time, but he was actually seeking a further compensation of 6,000 dollars, and came to this country upon the recommendation of colonel Browne, under the expectation of succeeding in that claim. As to the fact itself, is it credible that two persons, who had been gratifying their passions all night, could not abstain from the same indulgence in the day; and that, so extraordinary was their appetite, that they could not abstain from exhibiting before the whole ship's crew? It had been asked, why Schiavini has not been produced; but all he could have deposed to was, as to the letting down of the awning; and could his evidence, be for a moment thought necessary? Your lordships are called upon to believe that her majesty, not content with the nightly opportunity of gratifying her passions, was in the habit of exclaiming in the middle of the day, Now the fit is come upon us; now we are so hot that we can contain ourselves no longer; let down the curtains, and let us abandon ourselves to enjoyment."—Such is the conduct which your lordships are called upon to believe. If an adulterous intercourse had been their object, why was not the cabinet below chosen for the entertainment? Surely that part of the vessel would have been chosen in preference to the tent, which was open to every body's inspection,

1567
and to which the sailors had constant access.
It has been said, that it is absurd to argue that no adulterous intercourse could have taken place, merely because the lady and gentleman happened not to be undrest, and undoubtedly it would be absurd; but I call upon your lordships to consider the circumstances in which the Queen was placed. She was in the habit of throwing herself upon her couch in a state of exhaustion and fatigue—a situation of itself totally incompatible with the guilt which was imputed to her. Your lordships are bound to take all these facts into your consideration, and to give to the accused the benefit of all those circumstances which are favourable to her innocence, or inconsistent with the supposition of her guilt. When the situation of persons on board ship is considered—a place where the most modest female is obliged to resign all ideas of delicacy—where, as is said in that valuable judgment to which I have already referred, all persons, male and female, are cooped up together in a state of miserable intimacy, and where every word and action are necessarily known to all on board—to suppose that an adulterous intercourse could have taken place under such circumstances, is an inference which your lordships cannot be justified in drawing. Undoubtedly, the sudden elevation of Bergami, and the favours which were conferred upon him, are in themselves suspicious circumstances; but they cannot lead to that fair inference of guilt which would justify your lordships in pronouncing a verdict against her majesty. Your lordships have to decide upon this bill, and in dismissing the facts of the case, I shall proceed as briefly as possible to make a few observations upon the preamble of the bill.
My lords, when this case was first brought before you, it was not stated as a simple adultery, much less as an adultery committed three years ago, without any proof whatever of its subsequent commission. The preamble imputed a course of gross, indecent, and licentious conduct which reflected disgrace and dishonour on the throne, and required your lordships' interference with a bill of Pains and Penalties. I ask, if the simple case of the polacre, founded as it is upon suspicion only, has made out the charge in the preamble? I desire your lordships to consider what is the case upon which you are
1568
called upon to pass a bill of Pains and Penalties. In the first place, not a single charge is even imputed to her majesty for the space of three years, from the period when these infamous and abandoned witnesses, for I am justified in applying this language to them, quitted the service of her majesty. If the acts with which her majesty is charged, had not been committed in this country, they would not have amounted to high treason; for not one of them has been committed within the period which would have admitted of a charge of high treason. As to the disgrace and dishonour which is said to have been reflected upon the country, where, I would ask, is the proof of this charge? Undoubtedly, Bergarai was imprudently elevated, but it is to be recollected, that he was elevated by the power of a great princess. It has been proved by eleven or twelve witnesses, that he did not abuse his elevation; on the contrary, he acted towards his associates with a feeling which proved that he had not forgotten his former station. My noble friend, in noticing the manner in which Bergami was in the habit of lighting sir W. Gell down stairs, observed, with some degree of acrimony, that he smelt of the shop; but surely it ought not to be made a subject of charge, that he conducted himself with kindness to his former associates, or that he was willing to testify his gratitude for the obligations which sir W. Gell might have conferred upon him. As to the distinctions which her majesty bestowed upon Bergami, reflecting disgrace upon the country, so far is that from being the case, that Bergami was recognized and honourably received at several courts visited by her majesty. Her majesty visited Munich, the court of the king of Bavaria, and Bergami accompanied her; she was received at Turin, the court of the king of Sardinia, and Bergami was received with her; she visited Carlsruhe, the court of the grand duke of Baden, and Bergami was likewise received with her. As to the testimony of Barbara Kress, it has, in many material circumstances, received a direct contradiction, and no part of it has been brought home sufficiently against the Queen to afford a fair inference of guilt. As to the stains on the bed of Bergami, the Queen had never been so connected with that bed as to establish any legal inference of guilt; nor was the cloak ever proved to belong to the Queen. It was not from any delicacy on the part of the Queen's

1569
prosecutors that the stains upon the bed had not been more distinctly connected with the guilt of her majesty. Why was not that proof of guilt established by the testimony of Demont, who had the care of the bed-linen on board the polacre? The fact of such stains having been seen, might have been easily established against the Queen, if they had ever existed. So far from the conduct of her majesty having reflected disgrace upon the country, she had been honourably received at Munich, Turin, Baden, and even at the court of Rome; at every court, in short, in which she had not been met by the hostile interference of a British minister.
With respect to the expediency and effect of this bill of Pains and Penalties, if tin's case had been brought up from the House of Commons by way of impeachment, your lordships must then have laid your hands upon your hearts and pronounced a verdict of guilty or not guilty. In so doing, I should have said, with the learned lord on the woolsack, "Be just, and fear not." It is neither my temper, or habit, or disposition, to be diverted by popular clamour, from the execution of a just and necessary act. But we are here legislating for the public interest, and in so legislating we are bound to consider what that interest requires. Much has been said of popular clamour; and that much intemperate and improper feeling has existed, I am not disposed to deny. I stated my opinion on this subject on a former occasion, when that ill-advised letter was written by her majesty to the king, and I have no hesitation in expressing the same opinion now with respect to the answers to addresses. I think the Queen has been most unfortunately advised, with a view to her own interest, in publishing these answers. But it is the duty of your lordships to divest yourselves of all bias which that conduct may have produced, and not to pass the bill under the influence of those feelings which it may be calculated to excite. Your lordships deceive yourselves if you believe, that a strong feeling has not been raised throughout the country. The learned lord on the cross-bench has said, that he does not believe in the existence of any general feeling of that nature. Where, I would ask, can the learned lord have lived, if he has not witnessed or heard of the strongest indications of the public feeling. That feeling has been expressed from one end of the
1570
country, to the other, by all classes of the community, and not merely by the mob or rabble, as was stated by the noble lord. And here I cannot help regretting' that these terms should be so often used in this House, and that when popular feeling is strongly excited, it should be increased by language which is calculated to widen the breach, and to alienate the people from their natural protectors. I believe that a very large portion of the community, comprehending the most opulent merchants, tradesmen, and persons of the greatest respectability, have formed a decided opinion upon the proceeding now before your lordships.
There is another consideration which deserves the serious attention of your lordships, without suggesting any un worthy submission to the other branch of the legislature. Your lordships are bound to consider the possibility of this measure being rejected by the other house of parliament. If his majesty's ministers and their connexions shall still press this mea sure beyond a second reading, against the sense of the country, then I ask what will be the probable effect of such a proceeding upon the other branch of the legislature? If this bill shall be passed by a majority of such persons and their connexions, added to individuals who have not attended the whole of the proceedings, and more especially those who have absented themselves from the defence of the Queen, and who think them selves justified in voting for a bill of Pains and Penalties against her majesty, that fact, conjoined with the strong feeling existing among the most intelligent classes of the community, must necessarily have an effect on the House of Commons, such I as will give the friends of the measure little reason to hope, that it will be agreed to by that House. My lords, I have stated on a former occasion that I can scarcely conceive an evil more fatal to the tranquillity of the country than the mighty division that might be created between the two Houses of Parliament, should we agree to a bill degrading the Queen Consort of these realms, and the I House of Commons reject the measure when sent to them. And let us not overlook the difficulty with which the very attempt to press the bill through the other House must be attended. We have seen among ourselves, with little more than two hundred members, all disposed, as I am persuaded they are, to the strictest

1571
discharge of their duty, how difficult it has been for the learned lord on the woolsack to conduct the proceeding with a proper regard to decorum and dignity. What will be the event in the other House, or how long this miserable cause may be continued there, I know not. But when I recollect the length of time during which we have been occupied with it, it appears to me to be very evident that all public business will be most inconveniently suspended, that the ferment in which the nation now is, will be increased to an alarming degree, and, as all the disgusting scenes that have been described at your lordships bar will be again laid before the public, that the morals of the nation will not experience any considerable improvement in purity and delicacy. We already have cause to see what the opinion of Europe is; on our proceedings as they at present stand. How will that opinion be confirmed if those proceedings should continue for months, nay perhaps for years, without arriving at any termination! But that appears to me to be much the least difficulty of our situation. Much greater evils would follow the rejection of the measure by the other house of parliament after its adoption by this. And here I must express my opinion, that many unfair and improper means have been resorted to for the purpose of producing an influence on this subject. I have indeed heard (although I am persuaded the report cannot be true) that learned judges have been quoted as having given an opinion, that with the evidence which had been adduced on the present occasion they must direct a jury to find a verdict of guilty. Though this report has been very generally circulated, I do not believe it. I have also heard that an expectation has been held out (but I am sure the noble earl opposite would not be a party to such a compromise), that if the bill were but to be read a second time, it might afterwards be got rid of altogether. I am sure that the noble earl opposite would reject the proposition with disdain. I am sure the noble earl must feel, that if the bill is read a second time, it will be his duty to pass it, if he can, through this House. If it should be read a second time, I am inclined to think that I should deem it the less evil to pass than to reject it. Let it be read a second time and the whole mischief will be done. As far as it is in our power to do so, we should
1572
thereby affix a stigma on the character of her majesty, which no ulterior measure could efface. It has indeed been said by the learned lord on the woolsack, that the bill may be altered both in its provisions and in its preamble. But, my lords, I am by no means satisfied that any diminution in the enactments of the bill will diminish its ill effects on the public mind. But, when the learned lord spoke of the practicability of making these alterations in the bill, he spoke of them as affording a proof of the advantage of the present over any other mode of proceeding having a similar object. My lords, if this proceeding had been in the shape of a trial, your lordships must individually have pronounced a verdict of guilty or not guilty upon every article of accusation; and, if the majority had been in favour of acquittal, her majesty would at once have been freed from all charge. But here, having failed in establishing their original allegations, her majesty's accusers wish to substitute others. They wish to send the bill into a committee, where, having failed to fit the proofs to the indictment, they will endeavour to fit the indictment to the proofs. If this should be done, my lords, it will be impossible to deny her majesty the privilege of being heard again at your bar, there to state the hardships and grievances to which you have subjected her. But the bill may be altered—it may be mitigated. Now, what may be called a mitigation of the measure by some of your lordships, the Queen and her advisers may riot think so. I will exemplify this, with reference to the understanding which seems to prevail, that the divorce clause was to be left out of the bill. If I conceived, that the charges against her majesty were substantiated by evidence, and that the bill ought therefore to pass, no power on earth could persuade me that the divorce clause ought to be omitted. Such a proposition would, as I have before stated, have appeared to me calculated to degrade not only the Queen, but the king. There could, in my opinion, be no greater legislative absurdity, than to agree to a bill degrading the Queen for scandalous and licentious conduct, and yet to leave her the wife of the king. But, opposing the bill, as I do most conscientiously, on the ground that the charges against her majesty have not been established, I am somewhat at a loss what to do with respect to the divorce clause. I will give

1573
no pledge upon the subject. My conduct shall be regulated by circumstances. The present inclination of my mind certainly is, that if the motion before your lordships should be agreed to, the mischief will be done; and that in that case the bill had better pass as it is. In that case, your lordships will at least act consistently. But, if the bill should be read a second time, and then rejected by some contrivance or other, in what situation will you stand? Would your difficulties be diminished? What would you do further? What would the other House do? The business could not stand still. The Queen must be invested with all her rights and privileges, and prerogatives; and she must be so invested in the face of a second reading of a bill of degradation against her by the House of Lords! Our difficulties would be increased instead of diminished. It is true, that some step, such as that to which I allude, might serve as a kind of shelter for his majesty's ministers, but they could shelter themselves only by investing us with their disgrace and difficulty. This my lords, is the only word which I will allow myself to utter on this view of the question. I should hold myself to be indeed acting unworthily if I were to make the present a subject of party feeling. I trust that I have not pressed into the present argument any unfair or unworthy topic. I trust I have treated it as a legislator and a judge. I trust that the motives which induce me to urge your lordships not to leave a brand on her majesty, of which, she is, in my opinion, undeserving, are of a pure and honourable description. My lords, a great part of my political life has been spent in storms and convulsions. As far as human infirmity would permit me, I have endeavoured to pursue a direct and steady course. I have never courted power. In consequenee of my adherence to principle I have been excluded from power. In the course of my life I have also been the object of much popular reproach; These, I trust, are proofs of the determination which I have invariably evinced to resist the undue encroachments of the Crown, and at the same time to defend from the attacks of the people those rights and prerogatives which are not more necessary for the dignity and splendor of the monarch, than they are for the protection and the happiness of the people. In the case before your lordships, I have not made up my
1574
opinion without much anxiety and much consideration. I fairly acknowledge that my prejudices and impulses were quite unfavourable to my present conviction. I hardly conceived it possible that a case would be made out which would not compel me to vote for this bill; but, such a case has been made out; and, my lords, first on the ground of justice, and secondly, on the ground of expediency, I feel, that if I were to vote for this bill, I should never again lay my head down upon my pillow in peace. The only vote which, under the deepest sense of my responsibility I can conscientiously give on the present question is—Not Content.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose and said:
My Lords;—In rising to address you on the present occasion, I feel that I have to speak to a question which obviously, and on the face of it, combines two considerations, distinct in themselves, and which may operate very differently upon different minds;—I mean, first, the great question, whether her majesty is or is not guilty of the charges which have been adduced against her? and, secondly, the legislative question, whether it is or is not expedient to pass the present bill? Although I perfectly concur with my noble and learned friend on the woolsack, that the only question which we are at present called upon to decide, is, whether or not this bill shall be read a second time? yet I cannot but in some degree regret the necessity of such a course of proceeding; for it is impossible but that the judgment of every man must be in some measure confounded by considerations of a nature so different as those to which I have alluded, and by a combination of questions, which may leave it a matter of some uncertainty, whether the decision to which the House will come, will be strictly a decision on the question of guilt orinnocence, or on the question of the expediency or inexpediency of the bill.
In the view which I have taken of this subject, I shall, in the first instance, propose to inquire whether the substantive part of the preamble has been so proved, as to induce your lordships to read the bill a second time. The noble earl who has just sat down, alluded to some supposed understanding as to what should be the conduct of the House with respect to the
* From the original Edition printed for Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly.

1575
bill, if it should be read a second time and sent to a committee. To such an understanding I am no party. It will be for your lordships to decide, after the second reading of the bill (if it shall be your pleasure to read it a second time) whether the allegations in the preamble have been proved, either wholly or in part; and if you should determine that they have been proved, it will be for your lordships to decide, what the enactments of the bill shall be, and what further course you will adopt with respect to it. But the sole question on which you are called upon to decide in the present stage of the proceeding is, whether or not you will now read the bill a second time?
In discussing this measure, I will, for the present, lay out of my view all considerations arising out of the question of expediency or inexpediency. In doing this, I by no means undervalue those considerations; but the most proper time for arguing them was, when the form of proceeding was under your lordships' consideration, on the 17th of August. You then considered the question, whether you would entertain the bill at all, and whether you would admit counsel to argue this point before your lordships. You did near counsel on both sides;—and you determined on pursuing the measure. Your lordships have now been occupied between forty and fifty days in the examination of this great case. The counsel for and against the bill have joined issue,—as to the facts. You have heard the counsel in support of the accusation; you have heard the counsel in support of the defence; you have heard the evidence on both sides of the question. Under these circumstances, you owe it to yourselves, you owe it to the Queen, you owe it to the country, to come to a decision one way or the other, on the facts as they appear on the Minutes. However you might formerly have been disposed to arrest the agitation of the question, now that the inquiry is complete, your lordships are bound, by every principle of justice, to pronounce an opinion upon it.
Having said thus much on the necessity of coming to a determination on the question, I proceed to notice what has fallen from the noble earl, with reference to the allegations in the preamble of the bill. The preamble contains several allegations; but I conceive it to be a new doctrine, to maintain, that it is not
1576
competent to your lordships to decide which of those allegations appear to you to have been proved, and which not. There may be minor,—there may even be important circumstances in those allegations which your lordships may think have not been satisfactorily proved. But there may be other circumstances in those allegations which your lordships may think have been satisfactorily proved, and on which you ought, therefore, to decide. This is analogous to every principle of justice hitherto acted upon in every court in the world. In the courts below, juries are continually finding verdicts upon certain counts of an indictment, and not upon others. In the case of an Impeachment, your lordships have an undoubted right to affirm certain articles, and to reject others. Sometimes only particular parts of some of the articles of an Impeachment have been affirmed by your lordships. The preamble of this bill must of course stand on the footing on which every other mode of accusation stands. All the parts of which this measure is composed, are open to alteration—to alteration, not by which the severity of the measure may be aggravated, but by which it may experience mitigation.—And here, my lords, I wish most distinctly to declare, that, whatever any noble lord may think of any or all of the allegations in the preamble, no one ought to vote for the second reading, and I trust no one will vote for the second reading of the bill, who does not believe that the adulterous intercourse has been proved by satisfactory evidence. That is the real question before us, and to that I now wish particularly to draw your lordships' attention.
The noble earl who has just sat down says, "What a difference between the proof at your lordships' bar, the allegations in the preamble of the bill, and the case opened by the Attorney-general!" and he makes a personal appeal to me, whether, if I had thought the evidence in support of the charges would have turned out as it has done, I would have introduced the bill at all? Upon this subject, I might, perhaps, appeal to authority of which the noble earl would not think lightly, with respect to the sentiments which I entertained—(I do not mean to any noble lord near me)—as to the mode of proceeding, before the case in support of the bill had been opened. On the occasion to which I allude, I stated, that in

1577
my opinion, two views might be taken of the best mode of proceeding; the one, that which has been actually adopted by his majesty's Attorney-general, namely, that of" producing the whole testimony tending to demonstrate the culpable intimacy so long subsisting between her majesty and Bergami; the other, that of vesting the bill upon a shorter and narrower case. I do not state it as my opinion, that the latter course ought to have been pursued; but I say thus much in answer to the noble earl, to show that I did contemplate another view of the subject. But, my lords, be that as it may, I am completely ready to discuss the question on the evidence as it now stands.
I am quite willing to admit, that there is a great mass of contradictory testimony. But I ask your lordships, if ever there was a great case, in which the interests and passions of mankind have been excited, which has not exhibited a great mass of contradictory testimony,—of assertion against assertion, of oath against oath? Was it not so in the Douglas cause? Was it not so in the Anglesea cause? It may be very much to be lamented that such should be the case, but so it is. The reason is, that even where there is no ground for imputing deliberate or intentional perjury, witnesses in such cases nevertheless become partisans. Each colours his own story according to the bias of his mind. The statements of such witnesses, always assume the appearance of the statements of partisans. This, my lords, is an evil which has existed in all great judicial causes, that have been tried before any tribunal in the world. It is an evil which exists in the case before us; and I am quite ready to admit, that whatever doubt these considerations are calculated to create, it ought to operate in favour of the accused party. I am perfectly' ready to make this allowance; and I wish it to be distinctly understood in the whole course of my argument on this subject, that if I reject a great deal of the evidence which has been adduced, I reject it, not because I necessarily disbelieve it, but because, whenever I entertain any doubt, I think that to the benefit of that doubt the accused party is fairly entitled. My lords, I will go further. I will say that this case ought to be decided only by the uncontroverted and uncontradicted facts brought before your lordships. If I cannot show that the adultery has been proved by uncontrovert-
1578
ed and uncontradicted facts, I will consent to give up the bill altogether.
It has been said by the noble earl that a case of this kind ought to be tried on the evidence of respectable and uncontaminated witnesses: persons not only of unimpeached character, but whose situation in life is such as not to render them liable to the suspicion of being unduly influenced. But, my lords, may not a case be such as to render it utterly impossible, although the guilt of the party is undeniable, to try the guilt or innocence upon such testimony? May not the production of such witnesses as the noble earl desires, be rendered impracticable by the very conduct of the party accused? The noble earl who spoke from the gallery (Hare-wood) wishes that her majesty could have been tried on the evidence of English witnesses. So do I; and so, doubtless, do all your lordships. But, if her majesty chooses to reside abroad; if she surrounds herself with Italians; if, with a single exception, she has not an English person near her; how is it possible that she can be tried on the evidence of English witnesses? In the same manner, if her majesty separates herself from all the higher ranks of society, and takes into her household only persons of the lowest rank and character, it is a sort of insult to our understandings to require that none but respectable witnesses shall be produced at your lordships' bar. If her majesty places herself in a situation in which she is surrounded by persons not of that description, we must take as evidence the persons by whom she is surrounded. Undoubtedly, this may be a reason for examining the testimony of such persons with some suspicion, but it is no reason for rejecting such testimony, when the case does not admit of any other.
My lords; the noble earl says, and says truly, that most of the allegations against her majesty have been supported by certain of her majesty's servants, who have been dismissed, or who have quitted her service. Now, my lords, that is unquestionably the natural testimony to be expected under such circumstances. From the mouths of servants still retained, even under the supposition of the existence of guilt, no criminatory evidence can fairly be looked for. Such evidence can be expected only from those who having been in the service of the accused party at the period to which the accusation refers, are

1579
no longer so. But there is a very curious circumstance to which your lordships' attention ought to be directed. The evidence on the part of the accusation has, as the noble earl says, been principally that of servants who have been dismissed, or who have quitted their royal mistress's service? What would have been the natural answer to such testimony? The evidence of the servants who, having been in her majesty's service at the time to which the charges apply, and who still remain attached to her. But what is the actual state of the case? Has any such answer been given? Your lordships have had before you, as witnesses in support of; the Bill, former servants of her majesty, who have been examined and cross-examined; and whom, if you think proper, you may discredit and disparage. But, whom have you had on the other side? With the exception of Mr. Hownam, of all the persons who lived in the Queen's family during the period to which the allegations of the preamble apply, not one has been called whose testimony is at all material. Is it not to be presumed, that the whole truth of the case might have been rendered more manifest if all the persons who were in the service of her majesty at the period which I have described had been examined? As those who have left her majesty's service have been brought forward in support of the accusation, how is it that those who have remained in her majesty's service have not been brought forward in support of the defence? If that had been the course pursued, the defence would have had the unquestionable advantage, that, whilst a discarded servant is a witness who must always be looked at with suspicion; a servant retaining his situation stands in a very different point of view, and is naturally an object of trust and confidence. Nevertheless, my lords, such has been the case. The testimony of the persons who have left her majesty's service has been brought in support of the charges against her, while none of those who have remained in her majesty's service, and who have therefore avowedly been within reach, have, with the exception of Mr. Hownam, been called for the purpose of rebutting those charges.
My lords, the evidence which has been adduced on this case, has been already examined with so much minuteness on all hands, and more especially by my noble friend on the cross-bench (carl of Lau-
1580
derdale), that it is needless for me to trespass on your lordships with any long detail respecting it. It is material, however, in justification of the course which I am recommending to your lordships to pursue, that I should again call your lordships' attention to the leading features of this case. I have already stated how I think the general question stands with respect to the evidence. I do not know any fairer view of the question than to take the evidence of Demont on the one side, and of Hownam on the other, and compare them with each other. The one, discarded as she has been from her majesty's service, may be supposed to be actuated by strong prejudices against her majesty. The sense which it maybe imagined she entertains of the ill-usage that she has received, or fancies she has received, will, it may be supposed, influence her testimony in such a way as to render it justly liable to a considerable degree of suspicion. The other—and I am sure I say it to his credit—brought up in the family of the princess, owes every thing to her—his education—his promotion—his station in life. At this very moment, I believe he enjoys a pension from her majesty;—in short, he is under every obligation of gratitude to her majesty which one human being can be under to another; and, without imputing to him any sinister motive, its impossible but that he must be considered as a witness strongly prejudiced in her favour. Here then, my lords, you have two witnesses, both of whom were living with her majesty from the time of her going to Genoa, during the whole of the three years to which the charges against her majesty in the preamble of this Bill apply. I desire your lordships to read the statements of these two witnesses, Demont and Hownam, together; to criticise those statements; to compare and contrast them; and I will venture to say you will find that in every material circumstance where they can confirm each other, they do confirm each other, and lead to the same conclusion.
I am now, my lords, unavoidably led to that which forms one of the roost important features of the great question before us;—I mean the elevation of Bergami. The circumstances which attended the elevation of that individual give a character to these transactions which your lord-ships ought to bear in mind in the consideration of every branch of the question. I do not enter upon this part of the sub-

1581
ject with the purpose of giving any opinion whether or not the act of adultery was committed at Naples. If I were to come to the question on that fact alone, I should be bound to find her majesty not guilty of the act of adultery at that time. Not that I am without suspicion on the subject. I have nothing, however, before me on which I can decisively rely—nothing that goes beyond grave suspicion. But, my lords, can we advert to the circumstances of Bergami's rapid rise, without carrying that suspicion to the greatest height? Can we recollect that the conduct of her majesty at Naples, was such as to require, in the opinion of one of her vice-chamberlains, an admonition on his part, however it may be explained? Can we advert to that one fact, not contradicted by any one, namely, that her majesty selected Bergami from all her household, he being then a menial servant, and went with him and Demont, privately and mysteriously, to the masquerade at the theatre of San Carlos in a hired carriage? Can we look at all the occurrences of that period, and not be convinced that there must have existed at Naples, if not an absolute suspicion of guilt, at least a suspicion of a degree of intimacy and familiarity between her majesty and Bergami, which required to be checked and controlled? My lords, notwithstanding the seasonable caution and admonition, which her majesty had received, we see how speedily that intimacy and familiarity increased. When her majesty comes to Genoa, what takes place? We see Bergami's family received into her household. We see his mother taken into her house. We see his sister taken into her household. We see his brother taken into her household. We see his nephew taken into her household. We see his child taken into her household. We see, sooner or later, almost every member of Bergami's family taken into her majesty's household—except, my lords, his wife. Then, can your lordships possibly look at the introduction of the rest of Bergami's family, and the marked exclusion of his wife, as any thing but an unequivocal symptom of what was the basis of the connexion which subsisted between her majesty and that person.
But another circumstance soon occurs of the utmost moment in this case;—I mean the mysterious manner in which Bergami's sister, the countess Oldi, was taken into her majesty's family at Milan.
1582
This is the more remarkable, as there perhaps never was a character less addicted to mystery than that of her majesty. Why then, my lords, was the countess Oldi taken into her majesty's family in a mysterious manner? What temptation—what inducement was there for it? It was certainly a strange selection;—countess Oldi did not understand French; her majesty could speak scarcely any Italian. But why was there so much mystery in the transaction, if it were not that there was some secret understanding on the subject between her majesty and Bergami? I speak advisedly when I say, my lords, there is not a tribunal in the world by which the fact of this mysterious introduction into her majesty's family of Bergami's sister, Bergami himself being then only a courier in her service, would not be deemed conclusive as to the real nature of the connexion between her majesty and Bergami. Dr. Holland knew nothing of this. Her majesty never told him who the countess Oldi was; she never told Mr. Hownam, her private secretary, a man in whom, in other respects, she had perfect confidence. It was a secret which her majesty wished to keep from all the world. On what ground we can reconcile this with any thing but the existence of a powerful attachment between her majesty and Bergami, between whom the countess Oldi was to form the convenient and connecting link, I am utterly at a loss to conceive.
Let us go a little further, my lords. We find at Bellinzona, Bergami dining at her majesty's table, though still a courier, and in his courier's dress. And where was this? Was it at some small shabby inn, at which her majesty had stopped, and at which it was impossible to provide accommodation? No such thing. Was it at any place, under circumstances which might account for her majesty's sitting down at table with all her servants? No such thing. Bergami had travelled in the same carriage as Hieronimus; but neither Hieronimus, nor any of the other servants, were permitted to dine with her majesty. Bergami alone was thus especially distinguished. My lords, can any man say that this was not an act of degradation on the part of her majesty? If we couple it with the admission of all Bergami's family—with the memorable exception of his wife—into her majesty's service; and with the mys-

1583
terious introduction of the countess Oldi, can any man say that, it was not an act of the greatest degradation; or that it can be ascribed to any cause but one?
But, my lords, let us proceed. In another month we find that the courier's dress is taken from Bergami, and that he is promoted to the rank of an equerry. Lord Guildford sees him alone with her majesty in a canoe on the lake of Como. He is not only admitted to her majesty's table, but he is made her constant companion; the person who attends her on all occasions, and who is marked and distinguished by her peculiar favour.
My lords, I am the last man in the world to contend that there is any one, so low in birth, so poor in fortune, or so degraded in station, that he may not, by his talents, by his virtues, by his services, I will even say by his good fortune, justly rise to situations of the highest trust and dignity. But what do we see in this case? Did any of your lordships ever before hear of a courier becoming in six months a baron and a knight of Malta? In modern times, and in respectable society, can so rapid an elevation be attributed to any other cause but that to which I have ahead adverted. What had Bergami done to merit the distinction? From what danger had he protected his royal mistress? Never from any. At Genoa, when her majesty's house was attacked, if any one protected her it was Theodore Majoochi, for he fired the gun and dispersed the thieves: and, as to what occurred at the Villa Villani, her majesty knew nothing of it until after her return from the long voyage. Under such circumstances, I again ask, how are we to account for Bergami's sudden elevation?
Let us look a little more closely, my lords, into the way in which Bergami's family were introduced into her majesty's household. I can understand a person's doing one of two things when removing a man from a low to a high situation. I can understand how an individualin a low situation may be taken by the hand and abstracted (if I may use the expression) from his family; or, I can understand how a whole family may be promoted in situations bearing some relation to that of the individual on whose account they are patronized. But how were the family of Bergami taken by her majesty? Some were placed in high situations, some in low. Bergami himself, the courier, was made an equerry, and a chamberlain; his sister,
1584
the countess Oldi, a lady in waiting; his brother a footman; his nephew, a stableboy; and his other sister, a maid;—and I particularly request your lordships attention to this circumstance, that Bergami's sister, Faustina, was received into her majesty's service as a maid, whose duty it was to take care of the linen. What could have induced her majesty thus to fence herself round with the whole of her favourite's family, some in high stations, and some in low, but one overpowering motive?—And still further, my lords. In little more than six months from the time at which Bergami ceases to be a courier, he becomes the baron of Francina, and a knight of Malta. An estate is purchased for him by her majesty, and called after him, the Villa Bergami. We find St. Bartholomew's day likewise kept as his festival. And afterwards comes a circumstance more extraordinary than all the rest;—I allude to the institution of the order of St. Caroline by her majesty, on her journey to the Holy Land. Let me not be mistaken. The bare fact of the institution of such an order by her majesty I allow would not be deserving of much notice; but it becomes of the utmost importance as connected with the uniform favour manifested by her majesty towards Bergami. It is in evidence before your lordships, that the terms of the diploma of the order run thus: "The colonel Bartholomew Bergami, baron of Francina, knight of Malta, and of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, equerry of her royal highness, shall be the grand master of this order; and his children, males as well as females, shall succeed him, and shall have the honour to wear this same order from generation to generation for ever." Then, my lords, comes this singular point, that although to her protégé, William Austin, her majesty grants the honour of being a member of the order, the succession to it is distinctly confined to his "legitimate children." From this distinction between the grant to Bergami and Austin, may easily be gathered the religious and moral character of the institution.
My lords, can any man account for all this,—can any man account for the elevation of Bergami—can any man account for the sudden honours which he received—can any man account for the order thus conferred upon him, with the peculiar circumstances which I have described, without entertaining,—not a suspicion of

1585
the existence of an attachment on the part of her majesty to Bergami, but a conviction that her majesty was at the time of which I am speaking, under the influence of an infatuated passion for that person? I say, my lords, that I wish no man should vote for this bill, who does not believe that at the time when her majesty went on board the polacre, she was under the influence of an infatuated passion. On no other ground can her majesty's conduct be accounted for. The Queen's attorney-general, very ably and very ingeniously argued, that Demont's letters, in their natural sense, and without any supposed double entendre, were perfectly clear and intelligible; but that when once they were considered with reference to any supposed double entendre, they immediately became obscure and incomprehensible. I say the same thing with respect to her majesty's conduct, towards Bergami. Say that her majesty was actuated by an infatuated passion, and all the difficulty in accounting for her conduct vanishes. Without that admission her majesty's conduct towards Bergami is extraordinary and inexplicable; it is accountable on the ground of ungovernable passion alone, and I defy the wit of man to account for it on any other ground. Having now adverted to the sudden and extraordinary elevation of Bergami; having adverted to the reception of all his family, with the exception of his wife, into her majesty's household: having adverted to the mysterious introduction of the countess Oldi into her majesty's family; and having adverted to all the other circumstances which lead to the inevitable conclusion that her majesty was under the influence of an infatuated passion for that man;—I now come to another ingredient which is to be found in this case, as in all other cases of adulterous intercourse, I mean a constant creation of opportunities It has not been disputed, and it cannot be disputed, that, wherever her majesty and Bergami went, care was taken that their apartments should be as contiguous as circumstances would admit. This, my lords, has been in some cases attributed to her majesty's sense of personal danger but it took place in situations in which no personal danger could possibly be apprehended. Besides, if from this consideration, her majesty considered it necessary always to have a man near her, why should it be always this particular individual? Why should it be al-
1586
ways Bergami? Why could not some other member of her majesty's suite share that duty with him? It further appears, on Demont's evidence, that a communication having been established between her majesty's apartments and Bergami's, it was her majesty's practice at night to follow Demont to her own room, when that room communicated with her majesty's apartment, and to lock the door; and that was her practice, not only at the Villa, dEste, but elsewhere.
This leads me, my lords, to make a few observations on the evidence of Demont and Majoochi, respecting which so much has been said. I do think that if I am called upon to allow that suspicion attaches to the testimony of those persons, I am entitled to assert, that suspicion also attaches to a large part of the testimony that has been adduced on the defence; and particularly to the testimony of Hownam and Flinn. I am ready to make any allowance for Mr. Hownam, in consequence of the great obligations which he owes to her majesty; but none of your lordships who recollect the evidence which captain Briggs gave at your bar, but must feel, that, whether Mr. Hownam did actually give that advice to her majesty, which in conversation with captain Briggs, he said that he had given, or whether he merely wished to have the credit with captain Briggs of having entreated his royal mistress not to admit Bergami to her table, is a matter of no consequence; for in either case, Mr. Hownam's testimony becomes highly suspicious. My lords, I readily admit the probability that all the witnesses have given a colouring to their testimony favourable to the side of the case in support of which they have been respectively called. When once this inclination possesses a person, it is difficult perhaps to say where a witness is guilty of corrupt perjury. But, if your lordships will try Demont's testimony by Hownam's testimony, you will find this singular result, that in every point in which they can confirm and corroborate one another, they actually do so; and you will also find, that in several respects the testimony of Demont is more favourable to her majesty than that of Hownam. My lords all that I say of the evidence of Majoochi and Demont is, that I cannot consent to exclude their evidence from my consideration, either when it is confirmed by other testimony, or when it might have been

1587
easily, but has not been, contradicted. This latter is a point of great importance; which I cannot too forcibly press on your lordships attention. Mere confirmation may be the result of combination and previous understanding; but the absence of contradiction, where contradiction would have been easy, is a species of corroboration which can be open to no such objection, and which is therefore entitled to the greatest weight.
And now, my lords, I wish to direct your attention to the evidence of what occurred on board the Leviathan. I do not quote what passed in the Leviathan with any view of proving that adultery was committed by her majesty on board that ship; in fact, whatever occurred in that voyage, can be of little consequence; but I quote it in confirmation of my assertion, that there was a system constantly pursued of creating opportunities. It appears from the evidence of captain Briggs, that previously to her majesty's embarkation in the Leviathan, that officer had made the arrangement which a sense of propriety would naturally suggest, namely, that her majesty's lady of honour should sleep on one side of her, and her maids on the other. But, on her majesty's arrival on board, that arrangement was altered by her orders; and the maids were removed, that her majesty might have Bergami near her. I do not mean to inquire whether or not her majesty intended to commit the act of adultery on that voyage in the Leviathan, but I say that the fact I have mentioned bears on the whole case, and speaks volumes as to the general system pursued by her majesty of creating opportunities for that purpose wherever she went.
Let us now, my lords, look back, and see how this question stands, before we come to the polacre. I call upon your lordships to attend to all the circumstances which I have enumerated;—I call upon you to attend to the sudden elevation of Bergami;—I call upon you to attend to the reception of all Bergami's family, with the exception of his wife, into her majesty's service;—I call upon you to attend to the mysterious introduction of the countess Oldi into her majesty's household;—I call upon you to attend to the admonition given to her majesty by one of her own servants, even at Naples, and to the occurrence at the Opera-house at St. Carlos;—I call upon you to attend to the admission of Bergami to dine at her
1588
majesty's table in his courier's dress at Belinzona, and other places, on the same journey;—I call upon you to attend to the rapid advancement of Bergami to the rank of equerry and chamberlain, and baron of Francina, and knight of Malta;—I call upon you to attend to all the marks of favour bestowed upon him by her majesty, to the purchase of the estate of the Barona, and to the celebration of St. Bartholomew's day as his festival;—I call upon you to attend to his constant, his eternal presence with her majesty, and his invariable attendance upon her on all occasions;—I call upon you to attend to the incessant and systematic creation of opportunities by her majesty:—I call upon you to attend to all these things; and I then ask if any one of your lordships can declare that they do not constitute—I do not say a judicial proof, but a moral conviction of an adulterous intercourse having taken place before her majesty's embarkation on board the polacre?—For myself, my lords, I can have no doubt that the facts which I have described approach as nearly as possible to judicial proof;—to the proof that an ecclesiastical court would require of the act of adultery having been committed. But, if they do not actually reach judicial proof, I am persuaded that they amount to a complete moral conviction; and that no other inference can be consistently drawn from those facts. With reference to this part of the question, I particularly press upon your lordships' attention, that it is not merely suspicion, but that the facts which we have been examining amount to a presumption, which carries with it a moral certainty of guilt. It was said at your lordships' bar, by one of the learned counsel for the defence, "We bring her majesty on board the polacre without taint or suspicion." I marked the care with which the learned counsel laboured that point; and very natural it was that he should do so. He felt that the polacre was a great obstacle in his path, and he wished to be assisted in surmounting it by carrying an unsuspected character, on the part of her majesty, up to that very moment. Now, I contend, my lords, and I think I have incontrovertibly shown, that her majesty's conduct up to that moment was attended by circumstances not only of the greatest suspicion, but of suspicion amounting to a reasonable presumption, if not to a moral certainty of guilt.

1589
There are two other circumstances, my lords, prior to her majesty's embarkation in the polacre, which are well worthy of your lordships' attention. All her majesty's English suite left her service about this time, some on one alleged account, and some on another. I am ready to give credit to those individuals who say that their departure was occasioned by other circumstances, though it is certainly somewhat extraordinary that those other circumstances should all have occurred at that particular time. When people have a strong but not a very agreeable reason of one kind for not doing a thing, it is easy to make to themselves another and a more plausible reason for doing it, and even to impose that other reason on their own understanding as their real motive. The other remarkable fact, is, that those of her majesty's English suite have been called in her majesty's behalf, who remained the shortest time in her service. Thus, we have had lady Charlotte Lindsay who was with her majesty only twenty and odd days; but we have not had lady Elizabeth Forbes, who was with her majesty for four months, nor have we had lady Charlotte Campbell, who was with her, I believe, above forty days. How is it, also, that we have not had Mr. Burrell, who could have spoken to still later facts in her majesty's conduct than most of the other English witnesses? There is another very singular circumstance. Her majesty's faithful, old, and long-tried servant Sicard, who went with her from England, went home just as her majesty left Naples. Why was he so sent home? The man's answer upon that point is worthy of your lordships' notice. When he is asked, "Did you leave her royal highness at Naples?" his reply is, "No; her royal highness left me." At Naples, Sicard departed.* At Venice, Dr. Holland leaves her majesty. I allow that Dr. Holland was to have left her majesty at all events; but his departure was hastened. It was her majesty who intimated to Dr. Holland at Milan that he might as well travel for six weeks in Switzerland. Let your lordships look at
* It is but just to observe, that Sicard states in a subsequent part of his evidence, that his going from Naples to England was suggested by himself; but he was directed to be prepared to return at a moment's warning, and he never received any orders to return.
1590
these circumstances. Are they not most seriously important in their bearing upon the question? Is it not a striking corroboration of all that I have advanced, that her majesty should send Sicard to England; and that she should induce Dr. Holland to undertake a tour of six weeks in Switzerland; both at the very crisis of her connexion with Bergami; and the latter just after the period at which his family had been received into her majesty's service?
The hour of four having arrived, the House adjourned.