Sitting of 5 October 1820

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—REVOLUTION IN NAPLES.
Lord Hollandsaid, that before the counsel were called in, he thought it necessary to ask the noble earl opposite a few questions on the subject of our foreign relations. Among the mass of papers on the table there was a treaty, by which the five great powers of Europe had formed themselves into a tribunal to judge of the conduct of other nations. They had established a sort of state policy, by which they were, on every emergency, forcibly to interfere in the
256
concerns of other countries. From the armaments of Austria, and the publications which had taken place, it seemed to be thought that that emergency had now arrived. The great variety of menacing papers which had appeared in the foreign journals, both from Russia and Austria, on this subject, gave him a right, he conceived, to ask the noble earl to state what connection, if any, subsisted between the engagements of this country and the proceedings of Austria with respect to Naples? But assuredly he did not ask this question in any spirit of hostility towards the noble earl. He was solely induced to ask the question because he thought it fit that their lordships and the public should be put in possession of the sentiments and views of his majesty's government on this subject. He asked it, too, in the confidence that the answer of the noble earl would, like that given to the question he (lord Holland) had put in the similar case of Spain, redound to the credit of ministers themselves, and prove beneficial to the country. Such an answer would also be useful to those who, in another part of the world, might wish to effect a revolution advantageous to their country. He therefore asked, whether any communication had taken place respecting the object of the armaments now making by Austria, and whether that power had demanded any assistance? If such demand had been made, he wished to know what answer had been given by ministers, and whether any countenance had been given, directly or indirectly, to the principles of interference in the concerns of independent nations professed by the great powers of the continent? He was also desirous of knowing whether the revolution which had taken place in Naples altered in any degree, the relations of amity which had previously subsisted between his majesty and the king of the Two Sicilies? He trusted that the answers of the noble earl to these questions would be such as to show that his majesty's government had no concern, and felt no common interest in any schemes which had for their object an interference in the domestic affairs of other nations.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he was perfectly willing to give his noble friend an answer, which he trusted, would be considered satisfactory: at the same time he thought it necessary to observe, that

257
their lordships must be aware that, consistently with his public duty, some points of these questions were of a nature to preclude minute explanations. The noble lord regarded the events which had token place at Naples as similar to those which occurred in Spain. Before, therefore, he answered the questions of the noble lord, he thought it expedient, in order to obviate any misconception on this subject, to state, that he certainly thought the revolution in Naples differed considerably from that in Spain. This difference arose out of the state of the Sicilian dominions; for it was notorious, that there subsisted a division between the two members of that monarchy, and it did not appear that Sicily had yet acquiesced in the system of government established at Naples. Having stated thus much, he should now, in answer to the noble lord's questions, say—without giving up the right of the government of this country to interfere in the concerns of other nations, under certain circumstances which might call for such interference—that he had no difficulty in declaring, that it was no part of the policy of his majesty's government to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, and that the government was no party either directly or indirectly, to any engagements for such a purpose. He wished it to be distinctly understood, that in what he said, he never meant to fetter the discretion of the government as to what might be thought fitting under particular circumstances: nor was he giving any opinion as to what other countries might think fit to do in the situation in which they might be placed. On these points his noble friend had no right to expect him to enter into details. As he had said, however, he had no hesitation in declaring, that it was no part of the policy of this country to interfere with the internal government of other states, and that no engagements to that effect existed.
Lord Hollandwas happy to hear the explanation which had been given, so far as it went; but the noble earl had not fully answered his questions. The noble earl had alluded to a difference between the cases of Spain and Naples, in consequence of the division which appeared to subsist between the two members of the latter monarchy. He should be glad if the noble earl would inform him, whether he Considered the events which constituted
258
that difference, to have altered the relations of amity which had previously existed between his majesty and the king of the Two Sicilies; and whether that difference appeared to him such as to bring the case of Naples in any way within the exception to which he had alluded.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had omitted to answer the noble lord's question respecting the relations between this country and Naples merely from oversight. It was well known that a gentleman of great respectability had for some time filled the situation of his majesty's minister to the king of the Two Sicilies. That gentleman was still at Naples, but not in the same character. He had no hesitation in stating, that since the late change took place at Naples no new letters of credence had been sent out to sir W. A'Court. The existing state of the government of Naples would sufficiently account for this; but the fact was, that, under the present circumstances, it had not been thought right to give any new letters of credence to his majesty's ministers at Naples.
Lord Hollandasked, whether the occurrence of such a revolution in a country like that of Naples was thought a sufficient reason for renewing letters of credence to an ambassador?
The Earl of Liverpooldid not mean to say that, under ordinary circumstances, when a revolution took place, new credentials should be given to the resident ambassador of this country. He had, however, no difficulty in informing their lordships, that, in the existing state of Naples, it had not been thought fit yet to give any new letters of credence, and none had been received from the government of that country.
Earl Greyrepeated the statement which he understood the noble earl to have made, and observed, that its result was, that the late accredited minister of Great Britain at Naples remained there in no official station. This, he must contend, was a suspension of the amicable relations between the two countries, which the events that had occurred at Naples did not justify. He had heard the declaration of the noble earl on this subject with great pain. He admitted that the division which subsisted between the two states which composed the Sicilian dominions constituted a difference between the revolutions of Spain and Naples; but that difference was not such as to make it right in this government to sus-

259
pend the usual relations of amity with his Neapolitan majesty; more especially at a time when every motive of interest and policy dictated the extending and cultivating the relations of peace with every part of the world. From what the noble earl had said upon the present situation of his majesty's minister at Naples, it appeared, that he thought new letters of credence necessary. Now, suppose the king of Naples had been continued in the exercise of the royal authority, notwithstanding the revolution, would new letters of credence have then been necessary? The noble lord, it appears, thinks not. Then how did the circumstance of the duke of Calabria, to whom the king had delegated his authority, being at the head of the government, make such a difference? He apprehended that the very same thing had occurred at Naples as had taken place here when the prince-regent was placed at the head of the government of this country, that is, that the sovereign authority of Naples was exercised by the Icing's son, as vicar-general of the kingdom. He could not, therefore, think that what had fallen from the noble earl on this subject was any encouraging symptom of that amicable spirit by which he represented his majesty's ministers to be guided. There was another circumstance in the noble earl's explanation which was not quite satisfactory. If he had rightly heard and rightly understood what passed, the noble earl had intimated, that whatever measures might now be taking by Austria or other powers, in hostility to the revolution of Naples, such proceedings, whatever they might be, had not taken place in consequence of any communication with this country, and had not received any encouragement whatever from his majesty's government. He wished that the noble earl had added, that these proceedings had not only not received, but that there existed no disposition to give them, any encouragement. He hoped, however, that he might understand him in this sense. Into the abstract question of possible cases in which interference might be justifiable, he should not enter; that such cases might occur every body admitted; it was sufficient that they did not now exist. But, supposing things to remain as they were at present, he must consider the government as solemnly pledged, in the face of the House and of Europe, that no encouragement, direct or indirect, was to be given to any measures that Austria
260
might adopt with a view to interference in the affairs of Naples. This pledge would be of the greatest advantage to this country and to Europe at the present moment, when sentiments prevailed such as those he had seen in a state-paper lately published. That paper he had read with disgust, as it contained those principles of arbitrary power, which were more consistent with a conspiracy of kings against liberty than with an alliance deserving the name of "Holy". He was glad, therefore, to hear that no encouragement, direct or indirect, was to be given to Austria.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought it necessary to rise again to obviate any misunderstanding. He wished to repeat, that it was not the policy of this country, at this time, under present circumstances, to interfere with the internal concerns of any other country—that this country was no party, directly or indirectly, to any engagements of such a character, and had not, directly or indirectly, encouraged any measures of the nature alluded to on the part of other governments. This he stated most distinctly, with the reserve that he would not fetter the discretion of the government of this country by saying what course might thereafter be pursued under possible and eventual circumstances. All he desired was, that what he had stated might be taken in the terms in which he had stated it, and not in those in which others might describe it.

COLONEL BROWNE AND M. MARRIETI.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that having been the person who had first called the attention of their lordships to a letter of M. Marrietti, which seemed to indicate an attempt on the part of colonel Browne to interfere with the witnesses in the cause of the Queen, on the subject of which, papers had been laid before the House [See p. 109], he should have been sincerely happy to express his satisfaction at the explanation which had been given in the letters which the noble earl (Liverpool) had produced. Unfortunately, that was not in his power, as a letter had come into his possession at the same time that the noble earl had produced his explanation, which letter tended to throw a light on the proceedings very different from that which the noble earl's explanation had cast on them. That letter had been sent to him by a person with whom he had had no previous intimacy, and who bad given him no

261
special authority to make public use of it, and he, in the exercise of his discretion, had thought fit not to do so. But since that time, not only the letter to which he had alluded, but other letters, throwing a still stronger light upon the case, had made their appearance in the public papers; and, great as his satisfaction would be in declaring his conviction that there had been no interference, he could not now have that satisfaction. Any of their lordships who had read the papers in which those letters were contained, would see that the case could not rest there. Far would it be from him, even on the assertion of Mr. Marrietti, though he believed him to be as respectable as any man, to condemn an individual without a hearing. But if their lordships would read those letters, they could not help feeling a doubt that Mr. Marrietti was induced to make the communication to his son, not by a direct intimation from colonel Browne (for that was negatived), but by one conveyed through the confidential clerk. The first letter of the elder Marrietti, which bore date the 16th September, contained the following passage:—"It is true that Browne has expressly and repeatedly insisted, with Mr. Albertonio, that he should make known to you the dissatisfaction in that quarter towards you, and the danger of the Alien bill which you were going to encounter." That letter had been written after a knowledge of what had taken place in England. There was a subsequent letter from the same gentleman, dated Milan, Sept. 20, in which it is said, "He (col. Browne) seeing himself much disquieted on this account, made such an application to Signor D. Ciceri, and to Signor Albertonio, that the former begged me to convey to the said colonel Browne a letter of mine, which, in a certain way (in certo qual modo,) might justify him with his government from the too rigorous interpretation given to my former letter. And after having written and re-written, through the medium of the said Signor Ciceri, draughts of such a letter to be shown, the copy which I in close to your address was fixed upon. You will likewise find the copy of a letter which the said colonel Browne desired from the said Signor Albertonio, who gave me the account contained in the letters formerly addressed to you. To the honour of truth, I have regarded what colonel Browne said, through the medium of Signor Albertonio, as an act of friend-
262
ship, to prevent him from being brought into any danger. Nor could I ever have imagined that such a thing could have been of as much importance as it has proved. However that be, to facilitate the allaying of such a controversy, and to preserve amity with all, I have thought proper to second it, as you will perceive by the copy. They wished me to declare that my first letter was the result of my own simple suspicion, and had no ground to rest upon; but this I will not allow, because the having named colonel Browne in the way I did, would have been charged on me as a calumnious imputation; and, therefore, you will see in my letter sent yesterday to him (colonel Browne) that I mention my not having direct conversation with him, and derive my information from what he caused to be said to me by Signor Albertonio. Regulate yourself, therefore, in every thing, with the greatest prudence, in order not to incur other annoyances and other dissatisfactions, which can only produce evil to you." The expression of the Italian, as to the purpose of the representation he had made, was stronger—it was lasciar anello, to leave a loop-hole, "to leave a ring" on which to hang, as it were, an exculpation. Now, as to the considering all this interference of colonel Browne a mere act of friendship—this intimation to a person of whom he had no knowledge, and made, too, through a confidential clerk—considered, too, as emanating from a person who was the agent for the opposing party in the Queen's cause, and representing, as the noble earl said, though in a qualified degree, the government of England—how could it be regarded by an individual like M. Marrietti, who was living under a government, of which it was no satire to say, that it was absolute and despotic, for such it professed itself to be—under the Austrian government of Milan—but as a wish to influence his conduct? He did not wish to prejudge, even now, the conduct of colonel Browne, but he felt it impossible, that the explanation which had been given should now be considered as satisfactory. Further explanation must be had, and the making the letters evidence, would be the mode, perhaps, of bringing the whole case under the view of the House. M. Marrietti could be called to state whether the letters were authentic.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he perfectly agreed, that after the publication of the

263
letters alluded to, or even if they had not I been published—if any such letters had been in existence, it was impossible that the thing could rest where it was. He; only desired that their lordships would not form any opinion to the prejudice of colonel Browne, till further explanation had been asked or given. It would be observed that colonel Browne had never had any communication with M. Marrietti; that every communication that had taken place, must have passed through a third person, M. Albertonio. It would be observed, too, that he had never mentioned the Alien act, at least, so he asserted, and M. Albertonio did not deny it. He (the earl of Liverpool) was willing that the documents should in some way be made official, [that the fullest inquiry might take place. They might be addressed to some official person, or M Marrietti might be called to the bar to authenticate them. Some subsequent proceeding might then be had.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, there was contained in the letters no distinct denial that the Alien act had been referred to. M. Albertonio only said, he was ignorant of its provisions, and that the personal security of M. Marrietti had not been threatened. Colonel Browne did not say whether or no the Alien act had been alluded to; he denied that any threat had been used.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished all the letters to be put in; the first letter of M. Marrietti, in which the discussion originated, as well as the others.
Joseph Marrietti was now conducted to the bar, and having been sworn, he underwent the following examination:—
The Clerkof the House.—You are desired to look at those letters (handing to the witness the letters produced by the marquis of Lansdown). The witness took the letters into his hand.
The Marquis of Lansdown.—Having looked at those letters, Mr. Marrietti, inform the House whether they are the original letters you have received from your father?—A. The first is an original letter written by my father to me, and is dated the 21st of August; I received it by post. The second is the 16th September; my father wrote it, and it was inclosed to me.
The Lord Chancellor.—By post?—A. By post; but it was inclosed in another letter. The third is a copy of a letter written by my father to colonel Browne.
264
The fourth I received in a fifth letter It is a copy of a letter from colonel Fletcher to colonel Browne, and dated the 20th of September. I received it by post, inclosed in an envelope.
The Earl of Lauderdale.—Are these in the hand-writing of your father?—A. They are.
The Marquis of Lansdown.—Has Mr. Marrietti received any other letters on this subject from his father?—A. No.
or from Mr. Albertonio?—A. None from Mr. Albertonio. He wrote to me some time ago, telling me that it was stated by some person, the name of which person I forget, that I had been seen in the house of Demont. I answered, it was not true, because I had not seen Demont.
Who is the Signor D. Ciceri, mentioned in one of those letters?—A. M. D. Ciceri was a friend of ours, who came to our house; and I know he was also a very great friend of colonel Browne's, because when I came here he begged of me to bring some dispatches for colonel Browne.
Have you in your possession that letter: which you say you received from M. J Albertonio?—A. I believe I have.
The Lord Chancellor.—Then be so good as to inform the House to-morrow whether you have or not.
Mr. Marrietti then withdrew.

BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST HER MAJESTY.
The order of the day being read for the further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled "An Act to deprive Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Eliza-beth of the Title, Prerogatives, Rights, Privileges, and Exemptions of Queen Consort of this Realm, and to dissolve the Marriage between His Majesty and the said Caroline 'Amelia Eliza-"beth;" and for hearing counsel for and against the same;
Counsel were accordingly called in. Then,
Mr. Williamsresumed his speech, and addressed their lordships as follows—
My lords; there was no part of the case, I believe, on which more of your lordships time was occupied—certainly none, in which my learned friend, the attorney-general for the Queen, exerted himself with so much effect—none, in which I attempted to present so many observations to your lordships, as that

265
part of the case which consisted in the counsel on the other side having been deficient in calling all the witnesses that might naturally have been expected, and of our being, on behalf of the Queen, exempted, in consequence of that, from being driven to call evidence at all. My lords, that observation receives strong confirmation, from the peculiar difficulties in which her majesty is placed; and as I stated to your lordships yesterday, that observations pointed to and founded upon particular facts, lead to more decisive conclusions, and have much more impression, and deserve to have, than vague generalities, permit me to commence my statement to your lordships to day, by mentioning one or two facts descriptive of those difficulties under which her majesty labours.
My lords; your lordships bear in mind doubtless, the case that was attempted to be proved at Carlsruhe by a woman of the name of Kress. The evidence; upon that occasion it is not my present purpose—as, indeed, it has been already more than once commented upon—to state; but only to allude to. Your lordships bear in mind, that the general nature of the case, as proved by that woman, was, the seeing her majesty and Bergami together in a bed-room, with some detail about the situation of the arm of Bergami, which your lordships will remember. Now, of course, nothing could be more necessary, when the Queen, however late, was apprised of the nature of the charge against her, than that every possible inquiry should be made, that all diligence should be exerted, to obtain information on the subject of her residence at that place. And, amongst others, it appears, that a chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden was in a great degree in attendance upon her majesty. Now, therefore, that the evidence of this person in all probability might be—that without something extraordinary it must be—material to your lordships, it would be a superfluous waste of time in me to observe; that person having been, as I have stated imperfectly, "appointed to attend the Queen"; which might mean for some short time—whereas, it was an appointment to attend her, during the whole of her residence at that place. Accordingly, my lords, feeling the importance of that evidence, and being desirous, in so far as it was possible, to be armed against the case that was set up against
266
the Queen, her majesty wrote a letter, with her own hand, which her majesty sent by a special messenger of the most respectable sort, that it might be the most respectable, to the chamberlain, the witness in question—I mean by the brother of my honourable and learned friend the attorney-general to the Queen. That letter, however, did not procure the attendance of that witness. The Queen then wrote another letter with her own hand, and sent it by another messenger—one, I believe, again to the chamberlain, and another to the grand duke. Three letters, therefore, were sent, by special messengers, to this particular person and most important witness on behalf of the Queen, which have failed in the production of that witness. And, upon the last occasion, to the witness that was sent by the Queen to obtain the production of the chamberlain, he expressed himself to be desirous and willing to come, and anxious in the extreme; but he declared, with tears in his eyes, that he had express orders to the contrary from the grand duke; and he has not arrived accordingly. And that, my lords, permit me to say it, is a circumstance for your lordships recollection, which I am sure I need not refresh—that this refusal comes from the very same quarter, whence, by the pressure of two ministers and two ambassadors, the woman Kress had been partly compelled to come to this country. Thus, the operation for procuring evidence, appears, like the memory of some of the witnesses, of which I yesterday spoke, to run all one way.
Now, my lords, again. It appears, that her majesty the Queen had seen a palace at Radstadt, of which she wished to become the occupier. There was no objection expressed by the grand duke at the time—on the contrary, to such a stage had the treaty proceeded, with reference to the obtaining this palace, that this very same chamberlain who, if he had been called, might also have proved that fact, and which, therefore, perhaps, may account for his absence—this chamberlain had gone the length of purchasing furniture in Order to equip that palace. And when in that state of forwardness, an intimation was given to her majesty the Queen, that the residence at Radstadt of her majesty might not be agreeable, and for that cause the palace was refused! And this, too, when there are complaints made, in parts of the case, that the residence of

267
her majesty is not with befitting society, not amongst Her natural friends, is not where it might have been expected!
My lords, again: it was not an immaterial fact in our view of the case, indeed in any and every view of the case, that some information should be given, that some evidence at least should be adduced, with respect to the conduct and character of Bergami, while in the service of general Pino, that being on your lordships minutes, as the place and the service in which Bergami was, prior to his becoming one of the suite of her majesty. An application was therefore early made to general Pino to appear. Upon the application being made, he also, in his turn, I believe, had some communication with the Austrian government, in whose service he now is. Upon that communication being made, an intimation was given to him, that if he came to England, k must not be in his uniform. That seemed to be an odd sort of intimation to the gallant officer; and, he therefore accordingly inquired, whether, under some mental reservations, it was intended to observe to him, that lie would lose his commission if he came. No answer was given to that question; and general Pino has not come and will not come to England.
Now, my lords, is it without cause that we state, on behalf of her majesty the Queen, that all the evidence on both sides (for both parties, as the solicitor-general had wisely observed, would be produced) is not forthcoming? Is it without cause, that we state to your lordships, that a rigorous demand was made for every witness that could be produced on the other side, while the greatest difficulties are thrown in the way of her majesty in her endeavours to obtain evidence for her defence? Do not these fads come powerfully in aid of those general observations which have been made, on the manner in which the case before your lordships has been got up? Do they not furnish a powerful argument in support of the accused party. My lords, I trust your lordships will be of that opinion. But the matter does not rest merely on these particular cases, which, since I had the honour of addressing your lordships, certainly have been brought under my notice more particularly. There are other persons—there are some physicians, I understand, and lawyers (who, I dare say, are likely enough to mind the powers that be very much) who will not come—
268
who are afraid of the Austrian government. Instances of this kind occur. Persons whom we may want, and with respect to whom, we cannot tell till we have them here, whether we shall want them or not, are not forthcoming, from the same interference of either our high or low allies.
My lords; I thought it necessary, although it was somewhat out of my intended course, to commence with making this statement, in order, so far as I am able, to make it auxiliary and subsidiary to that most triumphantand powerful statement of my learned friend—and to that most laborious argument—if argument it is to be called—which, after him, at a great expense of your lordships time, I took leave to address to this House yesterday, in conformity with the same view, of the subject, and following up the same principle.
My lords; having done this, before I come to make a few statements, which shall be in the shape of an appendix, and are meant so to be, to the case in its more general description, as it has already been made, your lordships will grant me the indulgence of one or two, and they shall be extremely short, general remarks upon the case as it stands. My lords, if, as the adverse supposition is, this were a case of open, undisguised, notorious adultery—and because open, undisguised and notorious, therefore derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and the credit of the government of this kingdom, and to the kingdom itself—may I be permitted to ask how it could be possible that the thing should be so long in being proved? Usually speaking, facts admit of short proof, in proportion to their notoriety. If a man should assassinate another at mid-day at CharingCross, I think the probabilities are that he would not be without a witness against him; and it is the circumstance of the thing being done at midnight, usually in secret, in privacy, in solitude, that renders it a case of laborious and of long inquiry. How does it happen, if this was really, as the preamble of the Bill assumes, a notorious and profligate and open case—how is it, that the adverse party should be driven to successful, though, according to the evidence, unpaid speculations, through apochryphal and doubtfully existing key-holes? Why has some place of confinement been defrauded of the presence of Cuchi, the witness from Trieste, as to whom I should surmise, from his ap-

269
pearance, that lie was at the time, paying some forfeit, making some remuneration to the offended justice of his country, and had been spared for a season, in order to degrade the cause?—I can only say I surmise so from his appearance; and in that I may be mistaken. At present I am not on his evidence, which, when I advert to more particularly, and the case he comes to prove, I will show he is entitled to I some dungeon now, and shall not be long without one—at least if punishment for perjury can have that effect.
My lords, again—if, as the case is proved—proved I ought not to say, but assumed—if, as the case is assumed, the present was an open and undisguised case of adultery, whence is it, I pray, that, with the single exception of Demont in that very memorable addition to her testimony—the third edition, with various additions it ought to be called—whence is it, that with that single exception, there is not a tittle of proof before your lordships of that species of evidence—I allude only generally, with reference to the state of the bed-linen, which, in nine cases out of ten obtains in corresponding trials to the present, if I may so call the actions for criminal conversation, in which proof is almost not only always given, but almost never not given, where the parties go to bed—how happens it, I say, that there is an absolute blank and silence as to all that part of the case, and that (permit me to remind you) when they are in possession of the chamber-maid Priesing, who was in the service of the Queen for the first two months of this supposed perverse connexion, and because perverse, probably pursued with a degree of inflammation, which that passion, in that oblique direction, is often supposed to have, and I believe often has, more than a regular passion? I say, she was present at the he day of this passion; and not only is there no such proof from her, but that witness is not called—and not only not called, but is brought over to this country, is now in this country, has been in Cotton Garden, that prolific Garden of Innocence, which has been exempt from crime, or rather from the inoculation of crime, according to my learned friend. There she has been producible—there she has been brought—and having been in Cotton Garden, or whatever other name it is called, they dare not call her. My lords, whence, allow me to ask again, whence all this delay? Why is it—I beg the House to
270
consider why is it—that in a case which bears an immediate analogy to high treason—which, according to the opinion of the first authority in the law as a text-writer, is high treason—which, according to every opinion, would have been high treason, but for the incidental circumstance of the nation of one of the parties—why is it, that a delay has taken place in bringing forward all these charges, until a time shall have elapsed which, if it had been a charge of high treason, would have formed a ground of acquittal at once; for by the statute of William, your lordship well knows, and every noble lord who hears me is apprised, that if three years had been allowed to elapse, the provisions of that statute would have interposed, and a prosecution of that description would have been prevented. Why then, I ask again, if these facts really existed, have they been allowed to slumber so long? Is it not a daily remark, that it is an object—that it is a point—that it is a subject of just imputation against any prosecution, if it has been permitted to sleep? Can it be pretended, can it be said (and I wish to touch this part of the subject tenderly, and will only do it, so far as it is necessary for the explanation of what I am stating) can it be pretended, that it was to this nation immaterial and to the honour of the kingdom immaterial, what the consort of the first executive magistrate might be doing abroad—I do not say actually the king, but the representative of the royal power, the then executive first magistrate of this realm—during the whole of these last three years which have been untouched by the evidence? Can it be pretended, I say, that it was immaterial to the honour and dignity of this empire, what was done or not done by the consort of that eminent and distinguished personage, only not then in possession of the throne, and only not then actually wearing the Crown? My lords, can it be said—is it possible that it should be said? Where is the excuse, then, for the delay of the production of the proof? My lords, will it not, by and by, be surmised—if, indeed, it has not already been abundantly surmised—that it was not what was done in Italy by the Queen, but that it was her coming to England, that gave rise to the charges in the preamble of this bill; and that it would be well, if instead of this somewhat tedious and verbose description of these proceedings, which are supposed to be derogatory to the interests and to

271
the dignity of this country and of the Crown, the recital ran thus—"Whereas her majesty the Queen of England hath recently come to England," I really do not affect to say how the preamble should be. I never drew up a Queen's Bill in my life—there are very few of them—no precedent since the time of Henry the eighth; and therefore my learned friends will excuse me for not knowing. But if there is no good reason in law—none in sense—none in decency—none in propriety—for withholding this charge for three years, when it was supposed, that the matter of accusation existed, when inquiry was going on and people were on the watch—when baron Ompteda was at Rome, ambassador from Hanover, for the first time—if, under these circumstances all the points of crimination were known, but not inquired into, it does, my lords, I humbly submit, operate peremptorily in favour of that case of which I am an humble advocate. The single fact, that with a knowledge of all the alleged criminality, the charge had been suffered to sleep for three long years, must make a deep impression on every unbiassed mind. It is for the opposite party to explain the cause of this extraordinary delay. It is not for us to account for it; and if there be good grounds for that surmise to which I have just alluded—if the conduct pursued by our opponents makes it, not a matter of hazardous suspicion, but one of well-grounded opinion—then, I say, that that interpretation also goes mainly to cast in a shade the evidence which they have adduced before your lordships.
My lords; I have already mentioned the single exception that was contained in the evidence upon the subject of stains. That exception is to be found in the testimony of Demont. I promised yesterday, that I would take some notice of that variation, in the shape of amendment, in the evidence of Demont; and accordingly now, my lords, I must trouble you with part of her examination in this case, that you may see how she improved gradually. The first will be found in page 246 of the evidence, in the beginning of her examination: but the part I am particularly calling your lordships' attention to will be found at page 250—"What observations did you make upon the large bed?" "Iôbserved it had been occupied."—"Can you inform their lordships more particularly of the state of it?"—particu-
272
larly pointing the attention of the witness to some description of some fact or other, and not to that general description of occupation, which means any thing, one, or two, or a dozen—"Can you inform their lordships more particularly of the state of it?" I cannot."—"Was it much or a little deranged or tumbled?" "Not much."* So it ends. Then, before she came to the stains, she was again examined by the solicitor-general, who put this which was somewhat of a leading question to her. He did not ask about tumbling, nor about derangement, nor about any thing general that ought to have led to the answer from the witness, if the fact existed—the solicitor-general, to get it out better, says at p. 252, † "State what was the appearance on the second night, of the great bed, whether it had the appearance of one person having slept in it or more than one person?"—leading therefore to that fact—"More than one person."—"How was that bed on the subsequent nights; had it the appearance of one person having slept in it, or more than one person?" "I have always seen the same thing." Then again, upon an examination by a noble lord, she is asked, (this is at page 362), "State distinctly what was the state of that bed?" to which she answers, "The bed-cover was extremely pressed down in the middle, and there were things upon the bed which I had never seen before."—"What were those things?" "Large stains."‡ So that the third edition of her evidence comes out, not only with corrections, but with large additions—each time there is an amendment and improvement in the strength of it; and it is not till the third; edition comes out, that the case is absolute and complete. Now, my lords, when I we are upon the subject of a witness mending and strengthening her evidence, I do not think a much more signal proof could be given than that which I have given. In the first instance, Demont proves nothing respecting the marks. She tries again and comes nearer to the wished-for point; and at last, after a little consideration, she makes her evidence quite perfect. Is it not extraordinary, my lords, when her attention was immediately and directly called to the state of the bed, when she was first examined, that
* See Vol. 2, p. 1114.
† See Vol. 2, p. 1116.
‡ See Vol. 2, p. 1211.

273
she recollects nothing whatever about stains? My lords, there is another of the same kind, in the evidence of Demont, and I will make it quite general and not trouble you with the detail. On the first occasion, when she spoke of Bergami being in the passage leading to the Queen's bed-room naked, she said nothing whatever of any door, still less that of the princess's bed-room being locked. The whole subject passed away; but she was examined afterwards upon the same point, and then, and not till then, she comes out with that important fact, that the door was locked the moment Bergami got in.
Now, my lords, not to weary your lordships more by general remarks, and having mentioned these only as incidental points, and confirmatory by example of the topic that was taken both yesterday and the day before, partly by my learned friend and partly by myself, of the amendment of their testimony by the witnesses, permit me to call your lordships attention to some of the detached facts, or rather, if I may so say, acts, on which the adverse case depends, and to shortly state in what manner, and by what proof, we propose and hope to meet those cases, or some of them. And, my lords, surely the preliminary facts which I have stated to your lordships will at once account for its being extremely probable, that we may not have all that proof in favour of the Queen, which we have reason to believe and to know now exists. If power be exercised to bring witnesses against her, and power be exercised to stop them from coming for her, hard, indeed, are the terms on which her majesty has to contend with this Case. My lords; in addition to this, I am certainly in no condition to state the evidence on the part of her majesty to meet those charges, with that detail, with that minuteness, which it was to be expected should arise from the well-prepared, well-digested, well-concerted brief of my learned friend, the Attorney-general. Surely, from the sundry examinations that were made abroad and at home, it might be expected, that they at least knew with perfect certainty what their witnesses were to prove. Two witnesses, indeed, in order to "make assurance doubly sure," had not only been examined; but, contrary to all precedent and example, sworn.
My lords; in addition to that, the
274
Evidence for her majesty the Queen is not arranged and collected; but in the course of arrival and collection—and, from the nature of the case and of the time, of necessity so. My lords, I am not ignorant that possibly, nay, perhaps I should say probably, it the Queen had been pleased to ask it, a longer time, a longer period, might have been allowed. But I will state to your lordships why her majesty could not allow that delay to take place. My lords, her majesty has patience—it has been tried—she has had abundant reasons to exercise it. Her majesty has fortitude—her life has made it necessary for her to exercise that virtue frequently. But she has not patience—she has not fortitude—to permit this Case to slumber upon that judicial, but most unnatural and unphilosophical equilibrium, which consisted of this—of all the Evidence, and two speeches into the bargain, being in one balance, and not a fragment of a sentence, or a breath of the counsel for the Queen, or a single remark, in the other. Therefore, my lords, her majesty would not allow the proceedings to stay—therefore her patience and fortitude, great as they are, were not sufficient to sustain the trial of a hearing all on one side—of the bane, but no antidote, to go out with it: and I know not whether there is any body who has fortitude enough to blame the Queen for that conduct. But that is the reason, my lords, that it is not to be expected from mc, that I should give your lordships the same regular, systematic series and detail, on her majesty's part, which an examination of three years does, or at least ought to have given the other side, who choose their time, who have their opportunities—who have opportunities, time, influence, every possible circumstance that is requisite for adequate preparation.
But, my lords, notwithstanding that disadvantage, I will now come—and I will do it, as I have stated, by means of reference—to particular branches of the case. I can do it more shortly—and I will endeavour to do it as shortly as possible—by allusion to particular branches of the case. I will begin, first of all, by reminding your lordships what the adverse case is; and then what, in the shape of contradiction to that case, we hope and believe we shall prove. And first in order I mean to take, because I believe my learned friend did not (indeed, he himself informs me he did not) amply

275
and largely discuss it—the case of the polacre—a case which my learned friend passed over, in consequence of an arrangement which had been made, that lie should only take a general view of the case, and then come to examine the particular credit of the witnesses; and he accidentally took, instead of this case, which as far as our case goes we should have chosen as the very fittest, the most pleasing for commentary—he accidentally took two or three others. But, however, my lords, I will come to it: for there is no part of the Case that I am more anxious to grapple with, that I am more happy to meet than this. If any one supposes it has been industriously omitted by my learned friend, the contrary will soon appear. And upon that subject no part of the examination most assuredly took up more time, none was more immediately prepared and observed upon, than the case of the bath; and that, your lordships know, is proved by Majoochi, at page 26 of the Evidence.* He made the bath to be taken in the cabin of the Queen, and Bergami and the Queen to be in the inside, and he on the outside. Now, Demont's evidence does not confirm Majoochi in this statement; because she, in one instance, speaks according to her memory of the bath being in the dining-room; in the other, she knows nothing. So that, as far as her evidence goes, she is not only not confirmatory of Majoochi, but in point of fact, as the fact was so material, her not confirming him in that point is virtually, as I submit, a contradiction. But, my lords, it will not rest there, because this bath was in point of fact, a tub, which the princess used, having nothing better on ship-board for that purpose. The cabin of her majesty was small; and I will prove to the satisfaction of your lordships, that, so far from that bath having possibly been taken in the cabin, according to the evidence of Majoochi, with the bed in it and the furniture that was in that cabin, it was impossible for the tub to have been there at all. Now, if we show a physical impossibility upon the face of that fact, I do not know well how we can have better contradiction than the laws of nature, in opposition to such a witness as Majoochi. I think that may do tolerably well for a witness of his description; and it is a part of his story, that goes to the whole of his
* See Vol. 2, p. 822.
276
case. The whole indecency consists in the Queen and Bergami being inside; and Majoochi places himself outside, as if he were a watchman, in order to see what is going on. So that it is not a part of the case, that can be split into details: it is true or false in the whole: if that tub could not be admitted, it is a false and malicious traduction of the Queen, like the other cases to which we have alluded.
Now, my lords, again. One of the witnesses, Paturzo, it is at page 95, says, that when Bergami had changed his sleeping-room, or rather his sleeping-cabin, it was quite possible for people to see from the Queen's bed to Bergami's bed, as they were lying in bed.* To that we shall, I think, give peremptory contradiction, and show, that the situation of the Queen's bed and Bergami's bed, when Bergami's bed was changed, rendered that fact impossible. There again, then, we have a contradiction. My lords; again mention is made of Bergami's changing his bed, and as usual, of course, for the purpose of making an imputation upon the Queen, and in furtherance of the main object of the whole of the evidence that has been given. Now, my lords, mark how a plain fact puts down that inference. At Tunis a surgeon was taken on board. There was no room for him, according to the arrangement which previously existed. In order, therefore, to accommodate him, and for that express purpose, and not at all under the Queen's direction, by her arrangement, or management, or in any degree, interference—for the single purpose of the necessity of the surgeon, that arrangement and change was made. So that that circumstance of suspicion rests pretty much like the rest, in a malignant disposition to misrepresent every thing done by the Queen; but it falls down before the fact.
Another circumstance which has been strongly urged, and is apparently much relied on is, the sleeping in the tent. That fact, not according to the evidence now before your lordships, but according to the evidence that will be given, was within half a yard of the steersman, who was constantly at that spot. Why was not he called on the other side, who, if Majoochi spoke the truth (which I fancy the understanding of a vessel will almost re-
* See Vol. 2, p. 891.

277
fute of itself), that he heard a noise, to which I need do no more than allude, the meaning is sufficiently obvious—if he heard it when he was sleeping below or being in a place where he ought to sleep—he did not say he was asleep at the time, he was not so stupid as that—but if he heard this noise, must not the steersman, who was within half a yard of the tent have heard something of it too? We will prove that the crew were habitually and continually, day and night, passing close by that tent. My lords, we will prove, that an officer who had the charge of the vessel, and was upon the deck in consequence of that charge, was frequently in the habit of receiving directions from the Queen, or at all events having questions I put to him by her, as to the progress of the vessel and the state of the weather, and that he upon those occasions, without ceremony, without any fear or apprehension, or any kind of notice or warning, used to take up a portion of the tent, and communicate to her the state of the weather and the progress of the voyage, at the time when the Queen was not, as I suppose will be said, in bed, but reposing under the awning with her clothes on.
My lords; in addition to this, I believe we shall prove—you will understand why it is that with any deduction or caution, I make any of these statements; it is impossible for me, I repeat it, to be as well framed and tutored and prepared in the very detail of all the evidence as they ought to be on the other side—I believe we shall prove, that the communication between the deck and the hold of the vessel and the dining-room below was constantly open. I believe we shall also prove this—that there were several nights, upon the voyage, in which Bergami did not repose under that tent; but that the Queen herself in no instance no where, wherever she went—particularly after some untoward accident that happened in Italy, and some attempts that were made of surprise there, according to the best of her judgment by some persons, no matter whom—never reposed without some person being there to guard and protect her. But, my lords, I fancy the nature of the evidence, as to this fact, will show, that when naked and sleeping and in bed, according to the construction of the other side, that person was at the door or in an adjoining room—in the other event, under the same tent, or in the same room in some instances (I know not how that
278
may turn out), when the Queen wag completely dressed, and reposing in her clothes. But, suppose any part of this be proved—suppose any portion or fraction of it be proved—what becomes of the testimony of Majoochi and Demont, either as to the fact of the bath, or the sleeping under the tent?—not to mention that with which I shall not weary your lordships, but only beg you to bear in mind—why have they not called, of the twenty-two sailors on board, some of these people—and, above all, that steersman at the helm, within half-a-yard of the tent, to state what actually was the case, in confirmation of Majoochi, a discarded servant, who wanted to be taken back and might not be taken back, but was refused, and the testimony of the discarded and ungrateful and malignant female witness?
Now, my lords, I will come to the case of Naples—the night, the very night, the night by the supposition, the night which from the agitation and alarm, which from the circumstance which the evidence details, no man can doubt is the imputed night of the commencement of this adulterous intercourse, not in some respects but in all respects the operative fight, the fatal night, in the transaction there—The evidence of Demont is, that the Queen returned early from the Opera much agitated—that she may safely swear; there had been only a description of what another person appears to do or suffer. She says that the Queen was agitated, and the person who is described to be agitated cannot be called. There Demont is quite safe. She says the princess sent her away earlier than usual; and then the supposition is, what I need not further describe—that that was the night when the adultery commenced, so opened by the attorney-general, so described by the witnesses, so summed-up by the solicitor-general. My lords, fortunately for the ends of justice and for the Queen, that was a remarkable night. It was the night that the king of Naples and his court were at the Opera witnessing the spectacle. For the Queen, accordingly, a special state box was prepared. She was there numerously attended by her appropriate attendants, who well remember, from the length of time that they were obliged to stand, which created no slight degree of fatigue (for the amusement of the Opera did not compensate for the severity of the exercise of standing), that they were worn out by the ceremony of that

279
night; and they full well remember, that they were obliged to stop in attendance upon the Queen until the whole was over, and that was not earlier than one o'clock or thereabouts of the night, or strictly speaking of the morning, of that generally described Opera night. So much for the earliness of her majesty's return! More than that, according to the testimony of Demont, the Queen had no bed to sleep in that night, or rather had slept in none; nor, indeed, does she give any bed for her to sleep in, during the whole of the stay at Naples—the small bed was not slept in, the large bed was not accommodated with linen. Where did she sleep? Demont must come back again and tell your lordships that. We, however, shall supply Demont with that proof, and shall prove that her majesty had a bed on that night. For not only was this night remarkable to the attendants of the Queen, by their being detained in this state-box by the Neapolitan court, which caused all that parade, but it so happened, that there was a violent storm of wind that night, which blew open the casement of the Queen's room; and I will call before your lordships a witness who was called by the Queen, in consequence of her being disturbed by the beating of the wind and the window being thrown open, in order to shut that window; and the Queen was then in her bed. Now, what are we to say has become of the notable case of adultery committed on this fatal night, when I know not what stars shone conscious of this agitation, and delicate virgin feelings, and I know not what they have thrown into the case, to have us believe that this was the commencement of the intercourse? My lords, I shall not waste your lordships time by commenting upon this part of the case: it is a peremptory contradiction.
Well, my lords, again, in order to make room, by way of preface, for the injurious inference against the Queen, your lordships may remember, that it was opened by my learned friend the attorney-genera), that William Austin, a boy of six or seven years of age, had been, just at that time, just to meet it, just to make this night the night and none other, withdrawn from the apartment of the Queen, as it is represented, for that and for no other purpose. What will your lordships say to that charitable, that honest interpretation of the fact, if I prove to your lordships, that that boy, being then nearly
280
thirteen years of age, and in the climate of Italy, it was suggested by another to the Queen long before that night, that it was no longer proper, that he should sleep in the room with the Queen, and that that change had taken place for some time previous, whenever the necessity of the case did not compel the contrary. My lords, that fact will be proved; and then, so much may remain of the six years infancy, so much may remain of this preparation for the night—the adultery night—the very night and no other—as, consistently with the fact, remains for the injurious interpretation which is put upon the conduct of the Queen.
My lords, again, upon another point. It really does not deserve it hardly; but however, my lords, we must not leave the matter short, where, by extraordinary circumstances, we are enabled to meet detached parts of a case of which we have been, until the witness comes here, in such utter and total ignorance—again, upon that imputed indecency of dress in the celebration of the trifling fete, in commemoration of the victories of Murat, when the Genius of History was the part sustained by the Queen, and there were two parts sustained by two other ladies, a duchess and a countess of the Neapolitan court. My lords, it will be proved, that that dress, so far from having been, as Demont stated to my learned friend the attorney-general, when he opened it—so far from being indecent, that in order to meet that appropriate character, it covered the princess up to the chin, and almost the entire of her arms. My lords, the nature of the dress is well recollected, and I dare say, your lordships know tolerably well, in what state the Genius of History is usually represented—"Sober, stedfast, and demure"—pretty much as Milton describes one of his imaginary personages. And why should it be otherwise? History ought not to have a very fanciful, or flighty, or imaginary dress; not having any thing to do with the laughter-loving goddess. And accordingly, not only from the nature of the dress, but from the actual recollection and the memory of the fact, a contradiction to that also will be peremptorily given, by witnesses who well remember the circumstance.
Well, my lords, I will take another instance. Your lordships will now call to your recollection the circumstance given in evidence as having taken place at Carls-

281
ruhe. Even as that stands at present—even with the inference that takes place there for us and against us—even with the subtraction of the best witness which we desire, and his being compelled not to come in obedience to her majesty's solicitation and his own express wish on the subject—still, my lords, is the cause of truth not without a witness at that place. At page 183 of the Minutes,* the evidence of Kress gives that scene in Bergami's room between the hours of seven and eight o'clock in the evening. Now, my lords, we are in a condition to prove the dining, including Bergami, every day, during the residence at that place; and there was only one day upon which it possibly could have happened, with reference to the time, when, as it will be proved, Bergami dining, I believe, with the grand duke, in company with her majesty and with various others of her suite, was taken unwell early in the afternoon, and went home to the inn. Now, I shall be in a condition to prove, by witnesses who recollect the fact, that there was some music afterwards, in which the grand duchess took a part—some singing—and I will call a witness before your lordships, who was present at that transaction and remembers it full well, from his joining and taking a part in that music with the duchess. The Queen was there, and I will prove to your lordships, that the Queen remained there, for at least two hours after the departure of Bergami, and I will show that upon the departure of the Queen from the entertainment of the grand duke and her return to the inn, Bergami was up and dressed; having recovered from some trifling indisposition—I believe a head-ache—covering, therefore, the time which Kress is pleased to make mention of, and to which she is pleased to depose, in the manner I have described, and amounting to the confutation of it by the appearance of Bergami up and dressed when the Queen returned from the entertainment of the grand duke. My lords, I shall prove that by a person who accompanied Bergami home in consequence of his illness, and who will prove the state of his dress, upon the arrival of the Queen at the inn, in the way that I have just now stated. Nor will it rest on one witness only; but there will be two witnesses to that fact: but I trust that one witness speaking to that point, with a correct
* See Vol. 2, p. 970.
282
recollection of the facts, and giving reasons for it, would be sufficient, in a case of this description: above all, when I state to your lordships, that there is reason to believe, that we shall be in a condition to give evidence, with respect to the conduct of this woman Kress, that would render her not fit to be believed—I will not say, to deprive a Queen of her preeminent dignities—but a sparrow of a feather of his wing—if we are not deceived as to our own instructions. But whether it be by contradiction to facts, or whether it be contradiction arising from herself, either is enough for our purpose—both would be accumulative.
Now, my lords, I will take the instance of Scharnitz, at page 301 of the Minutes. And there again, in the Opening of my learned friend the attorney-general, in the Summing-up of my learned friend the solicitor-general, in the examination of Demont originally—though she fell off from it in her cross-examination—proofs of an adulterous intercourse have been asserted, from the intercourse on this occasion of the bed-rooms, and in other respects—by which "other respects" was meant, the eating and drinking wherewithal they think proper to decorate the case now and then, when more material evidence is wanted. Now, we will prove, as it is admitted, that Bergami had been to Inspruck about a passport—we will prove by a witness who accompanied him, the time of his return—we will prove that her majesty was indeed in bed at that time, but that she had all the clothing on that she had on during the day, and that there was good reason for it, seeing that there was a severe frost, and the wretched inn was almost blocked up with snow—we will prove that, from the time of the return of Bergami with the witness who accompanied him, and which was about two o'clock in the morning, both the witness and Bergami were busily engaged in preparation for the departure of the suite—that the witness to whom I allude was more than once in the bed-room of the Queen, communicating the state of the preparations—and by the engagement of Bergami, namely, his being occupied in preparing for the departure of himself and the suite, and by the communication the witness had with the Queen, that injurious inference, that imputation without, foundation, that shadow of a fact, when it comes to be examined, will fall before the testimony which we

283
expect and verily believe, we shall be able to furnish to your lordships. The person to whom I have alluded is the best witness to the transaction, from the circumstance of his having been engaged in the preparation for their departure; but, in confirmation of this witness, we shall, I believe, be able to produce no less than three others, who all speak to the same facts, in refutation of the adverse imputation.
Now, my lords, I will take that case which, to be sure, amongst the rest, it is lamentable should go forth to the people of this country. But however, the abominations I allude to are spoken to in page 4538 of the printed Evidence by Mr. Sacchi, or Sacchini, by whatever name he delights in being called—I allude to the memorable journey to Sinigaglia. Now, my lords, I will proceed without troubling you with the detail—I am only alluding to it in order to draw the attention of your lordships to the contradiction. He says, he drew the curtains of the carriage and saw the indecencies which he describes and, to make assurance doubly sure I suppose—and thinking one instance not strong enough, there was nothing like having more of them—two or three times he saw those indecencies.* Now, my lords, in the first place, I will prove, that the Queen travelled then in a landau, that there were no curtains to be drawn belonging to that carriage. I will prove, in addition, that upon that journey, Sacchi was not the courier whose office therefore it was, to do that which he malignantly represents himself to have done. There was in that carriage a spring blind, but no curtains to be drawn, of which the witness gave an account in his evidence. Another person, as it is well remembered, and will be distinctly proved by many witnesses, was the courier upon that particular journey; and the reason for remembering it will be given to your lordships; and that man also will himself, I believe, be presented to your lordships, to prove the fact that he was the courier upon that journey, and not Sacchi. I will not waste your time, my lords, in commenting upon this fact—if Sacchi was not there, he did not see it—if there were no curtains to the carriage, he did not draw those curtains. My lords, I shall not take up the time of your lordships unnecessarily, by doing more than pointing the
* See Vol. 2, p. 1274.
284
evidence. My lords, I shall be in a condition to corroborate, to confirm, what I have stated, by the presence of the person who was in the carriage upon that very journey, and who will negative, as far as it is possible to do so, any of those indecencies to which I only allude; and who will also corroborate and confirm the statement which I have just made, as to the other particulars that are in contradiction of the foul imputations of Sacchi.
Now, my lords, again: your lordships may remember that Demont, in page 295 of her evidence,* speaks of a bedroom being changed in the Villa d'Este—of course all for the same purpose—all in furtherance of an adulterous intercourse. Nothing, in fact, could be done or suffered by her majesty the Queen, which was not twisted into the same construction. If the parties eat together, it is to perpetuate the continuance of it: if her majesty has a smoaky bed-room, and changes it, it is for the perpetration of it. Nothing can be done, nothing suffered, nothing omitted, that has not the same injurious interpretation. Now, my lords, upon the subject of the change of that bed-room, it will be in proof before your lordships, that the bed-room used by her majesty the Queen, during the winter season, troubled her excessively with smoak, and that in consequence of that, it was found necessary, during that part of the year, to provide another sleeping apartment for the Queen; and that was done accordingly, and that apartment into which she changed to avoid the inconveniences of the smoak was at the very utmost extremity of the house from the sitting apartments which her majesty usually occupied; the room that was infested with the smoak being close to those sitting apartments. The result of which was, that her majesty, in going from that substituted apartment to the sitting-room had to make the tour of the whole house; and in order to avoid that inconvenience, not a new door was made (for this was the gloss which was put upon the circumstance by the other side) but an old door was renewed, in order to make (which it did) a direct communication with the sitting apartments of the dwelling-house, and making an approach to them, I think, according to my recollection, ten times nearer than it would be, by the circuitous rout to which I have
* See Vol. 2, p. 1146.

285
alluded. Now, that, my lords, is the plain history of the change of the apartments, whence, of course, an inference is made directly, not only by the fact, but by the interpretation and commentary upon it, that it was all in furtherance of the imputed purposes of the preamble of the bill.
Now, my lords, there is another fact—the bathing in the Brescia, detailed in the evidence of Antonio Bianchi, to be found at page 398 of the printed minutes. Your lordships may remember, that it was a very considerable time before any thing could be made of this witness. He neither could make any thing, in his answers, of where the bathing* was to be—whether it was in a mill-dam, or in the water, or on dry land, or in what other situation. He was, indeed, in main confusion throughout the whole of his examination; and well enough he might. Now, the scene of this bathing was laid in the Brescia; and I understand it will be distinctly proved, that the Brescia is altogether a mountain stream; that is to say, that in reasonably dry weather it is a stream without any water at all; and in the rainy weather, it is so swollen as to render any bathing in it pretty much like bathing, as I understand it, at London-bridge at low water—when the water tumbles from the mountains, it is pretty much like bathing under London-bridge; when dry weather, it is pretty much the same as bathing upon the bridge itself. A suggestion is made by my learned friend, that this is not a part of the case with which I ought to trouble your lordships. I mention the fact, and mention it very shortly flunking that the fact, if true, was not by any means worth our while to have taken up any portion of your time in noticing it in any respect. However, as it forms a part of the matter of the preamble of the bill, out of condescension to those important and significant words, I have chosen just to open this part of the evidence.
Then, my lords, there is another thing to be noticed, and after that, I really do not know whether I shall trouble your lordships with any other instances. There may be other particulars, in which we shall be enabled to contradict the statement as it stands. Your lordships will perceive that I have all along taken facts, not constructions—that I have looked at the
* See Vol. 2, p. 1244.
286
acts charged, not at detailed parts of them; that I have not selected minute portions, nor particular bearings; but that I have treated the facts and circumstances charged according as they were made out against us. This is a matter which I am induced the more particularly to mention, because this was one of those particular parts of the evidence, upon which my learned friend the solicitor-general had ventured, in forgetful-ness of that wise and often-proved liberality which he displayed in the first sentence of the speech with which he indulged us—and, in order to meet him, that challenge has been accepted. In page 223 of the Minutes, in the evidence of the mason, Raggazoni, your lordships will find that antediluvian scene of Adam and Eve,* which your lordships may also remember, which I need not do more than allude to, in order that your lordships may comprehend what it is that I am upon. At that page you will find this honest person describes himself to have been working in a grotto, and upon a cornice in a round room; and very lucky it is that he has happened to condescend to give us these particulars. Now, the statues of our first parents had two positions. At one time they were in the house; but this applies of course to the garden. If he had been speaking of their position when in the house, and that he was working at the cornice in the round room, this honest man would have represented himself to be in a place for seeing what passed, with regard to the statues, just as much as I am in a situation to see something now in St. Paul's cathedral. But Bergami and the princess were in the grotto, or in a portion of that which went by that general name, and there was a round room in that grotto, and there was a room adjoining, both of which had a cornice, and none other: so that if Honesty was at work at all upon any cornice, it must have been upon one or other of those two. Now, when the figures of Adam and Eve stood in the grotto, they stood just as much out of the sight of the worthy person, as they would have done upon the supposition that I have just now mentioned. My lords, when I observe to your lordships that this will be shown in proof, it does seem a little odd, that we should have been so challenged by my learned friends, even if my learned friends
* See Vol. 2, p. 1093

287
supposed, as they might fairly suppose, that this man would give no calamitous evidence which we might get hold of. It did seem a safe challenge: we accept it; and we will prove to your lordships, that, according to the laws of optics—or rather the ends of nature—Raggazoni could not have seen that which he has deposed to have seen, and that he has been guilty of a wilful, a malignant, a foul fiction, on his oath, for the purpose of traducing the Queen of these realms.
Now, my lords, is it necessary—am I not wasting time when I say, that if any portion of this evidence be satisfactorily disproved, it being one of the ingredients of their whole case—and a case that is particularly circumstanced with reference to its cohesion and integrity, for that it ought to be entire more than cases in general, seeing that the witnesses have been particularly treated, that there has been particular examination, that they have not been sent here except with the imprimatur of Milan (except they had the currency of the Mint there, they have not been sent at all), and upon their arrival when sent they have been kept in that peculiar keeping which belongs to this case, and to no other of which I ever heard; having been sent over from Italy, they have been caged and cooped-up all together in a most unusual way, as if there was an official impression of some kind set upon their faces or their backs, for I know not which—if any part, therefore, of this evidence be impeached, I say it is an imputation of the whole, more than is general in ordinary cases; that it is a sweeping off of whole scenes of the transaction; that it is a cutting off, not of straggling points, but of whole propositions of their case; that it is not dealing with the fringes and the outside, but that it comes home to the substance, the succus et sanguis of the case of the adverse party, if case they have any at all. And, my lords, with respect to the contradiction to each of the witnesses, if you find him in a part of his testimony falsely deposing to a fact, what man can insure that he speaks truth as to the rest? A story and a narrative may be made up, and usually is made up, of the testimony of many persons: one person may go to one part, another to another part, another to a third, another to a fourth part; and the evidence of the first may be cut away, and the part of the second, third, and fourth, being sustained by credible
288
witnesses, may afterwards remain unshaken. But the veracity of a man is an entire thing; and if you shake him in any one part, who is the person that can come forward and say, "Hitherto you taint him with fiction; but I will draw the line—on one side is fiction, malignity, falsehood, on the other side it is soundness and integrity, and that which we; can trust." My lords, in human affairs that is impossible—no man can do it—there is no such line to be drawn—the veracity of a man, if impeached in one part of his testimony, is impeached in the whole. You cannot separate them—you cannot distinguish them. It is the shaking of that man's testimony completely and entirely from first to last. According to this test your lordships must consider his evidence—if he is shaken in that manner, he is shaken altogether. There is no medium, upon this subject, in human affairs. There is none in judicial proceedings. Above all, your lordships should bear in mind, that of which you have already been so satisfactorily reminded, that it almost always happens, and must happen, that any fiction which is meant to operate to the injury of a person, is not solely an invention, but is a grafting upon facts which may exist, upon parts of a story that are true, those ingredients and falsehoods whence the malignity of the whole arises.
My lords; this is true generally. And is there in the present case any thing, from whence to infer, that there was a ready method of building upon a substratum of fact, a superstructure of all this malicious falsehood with which her majesty is assailed? Your lordships doubtless bear in mind, that the scheming chambermaid who has been examined at your bar kept a journal of sundry incidents occurring during her residence and connexion with the Queen. This record was; kept during her moments of veracity; and in it your lordships have seen how (and very justly) she had loaded, extolled, and eulogised the gracious mistress, whom she has since perfidiously calumniated and betrayed. My lords, the facts there found furnished an easy foundation, a very proper foundation, for this superstructure of falsehood, upon which the whole might be built. There might ray learned friend, the attorney-general, find all the assistance that he stood in need of upon some points—all the dates of all their journeys—of all their transactions

289
that were true. Then came this refugee upon the Queen—then came this woman who, for reasons hest known to herself, chose to turn against the mistress who had protected and cherished her—and, by the assistance of another equally ill-disposed person, though perhaps of less ingenuity, engrafted upon these undoubted facts, facts of equal falsehood, and in the highest degree prejudicial to her majesty the Queen.
My lords; when I heard the adverse case torn in pieces, yesterday and the day before, by my hon. and learned friend, in such wise, that, to my mind—I am an advocate doubtless, and I thank God a zealous one in tin's cause, and therefore may not be quite fit to estimate inferences and conclusions—but when I heard my honourable friend, to my judgment, by the convincing and powerful arguments that he made use of, shake the adverse case to its foundation, I was almost disposed to cry out in the impassioned language of Cicero," O magna vis veritatis, qua contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, solerliam, contraque fictas omnium insidias, facile per se ipsam defendat!". But, my lords, when I see, that, after the lapse of so much time, whereby the memory of persons might have failed them, the persons themselves might have been hurried away, and time have cast its mantle over many of the important occurrences—when I see an expectation, which was apparent, of so much being proved, as I have fairly and in the outline opened to you—then, my lords, do I hesitate to confide in that declaration, even though it proceeded from Cicero, and, with my learned friend, the Queen's attorney-general, I say, that we are bound to attribute it to the bounty of Providence, who does frequently, in the absence of human means, defend the innocent as it were with a shield, and whose gracious and ready help does most especially maintain and defend the desolate and the oppressed.
My lords; I cease to sum up the evidence on behalf of her majesty, by reminding your lordships of two witnesses from the quiver of my adversary. I call before your lordships for the Queen, the honourable officers of the King—I call on behalf of her majesty, captain Pechell and captain Briggs, the only two men of this nation (I mean no national reflection), the only two persons whom your lordships can, with the utmost confidence, with the roost implicit reliance, beyond all shade
290
and shadow of doubt, place your hands upon your hearts and say, "This is the evidence which we can implicitly believe." Captain Pechell, with the honourable candour of a gentleman and of an officer, not being entirely without some slight grounds—I do not mean of an important nature—some slight grounds of offence existing between himself and her majesty, speaks nothing against the Queen. The other honourable and gallant officer, captain Briggs, speaks decidedly for the Queen. Now, my lords, if the alleged attachment of her majesty to Bergami was, indeed, this violent, obstinate, and unsurmountable passion—if it was one that could not be concealed from the witnesses to the amount of twenty at a time—if it was one that must be gratified in the market place, or on ship-board—which was then in the height of its inflammation—could, I say, upon that supposition, if their case had been true—could nearly three weeks have passed on board the gallant officer's ship the Leviathan, and nothing of all this have transpired? My lords, the adverse imputation, and the supposition of the domineering passion under which the adverse counsel placed the Queen, and the absence of all proofs which such an occasion required, namely, proof decisive, all "strong as holy-writ",—such as would satisfy your lordships and the people of England, and such as might have been had, if they existed—speaks volumes of proof in favour of the Queen—speaks with the language of a trumpet before your lordships. My lords, what system is this? Are we not daily hearing, and hearing in the shape of lamentation and complaint, that there exists in this country, at this time, a turbulent and insubordinate spirit—and every now and then, "ever and anon," we hear of treasonable tempers amongst no small portion of the people? Do we not hear it said, and is it not rung in our ears, that "the laws are beheld with contempt in their enaction, with disgust in their execution?" Do we not, moreover, hear, almost in the language of the writer to whom I have just alluded—(who, by the way, applied this very description to the state of tin's country, now just half a century ago)—I mean, Mr. Burke, the same complaints which were then prevalent, that "the government stood in need rather of reformation than of support"? Do we not also hear now, as it was lamented then, that rank, and office, and title, and all the solemn

291
plausibilities of the world are fallen into disrespect?' My lords, is this true, or is it not? If it be true, what are we now doing, my lords? Is the principle of incapacitation confined to either sex? My lords, what—I repeat it—are we now doing? I do not say, casting a legislative measure of doubtful import—I do not say, bringing forward a measure which may be injurious possibly, and greatly injurious, but which may also be greatly advantageous, and for which, therefore, some perils should be endured—but casting, I will call it nothing else, a lighted and burning fire-brand, of no other than an anti-monarchical tendency, into a magazine, as it is now described by continual lamentation and complaint, ripe for combustion and explosion of' itself. My lords, is this to be carried on, and to pass through every stage—is this demoralizing and dethroning investigation to be pushed to the utmost extent, and that, too, upon such evidence as has been adduced at your lordships bar? My lords, it is not for me to answer these questions, I will push the subject no farther.
My lords; that your lordships, not I will say, acting in conformity to morality, but not disdaining the precedent of those wise judges to whom I before alluded, who looked to posterity, and who, it seems, were of the same mind with the universal people of that country—that your judgment, I say, may by these means, assuage heats, remove animosities, and possibly, peradventure, by great good fortune, even yet maintain the tranquillity and peace of this empire, is the second wish that animates my heart—the first is, since hazards are incurred and consequences have been neglected, that, at whatever hazards, at whatever consequences, the cause of substantial justice may triumph.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Earl Greysaid, that before her majesty's counsel proceeded to call the witnesses for the defence, he wished to call the attention of their lordships to two statements which had been made by the learned counsel at the bar, and which he considered of so much importance, that he felt it his duty to submit to their lordships the propriety of calling upon the counsel to know whether they were now prepared to enter into the proof of those statements. Their lordships would anticipate that he alluded to the representations made by the coun-
292
sel of the means which had been used to prevent the production of evidence in favour of the Queen, first in the case of the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden, and next in the instance of general Pino, the testimony of both which persons was stated to be most important. The noble earl opposite had said on a former occasion, with that propriety which had distinguished his conduct throughout this proceeding, that whatever influence his majesty's government possessed with foreign powers should be exerted to procure witnesses for the defence, in the same manner as it had been used to obtain evidence for the prosecution. The conduct of the noble earl on that occasion gave general satisfaction; it was as satisfactory to the minds of all, as it was consistent with that fairness and love of justice by which the noble earl declared himself to be actuated in the prosecution of this bill. Upon reference to page 202 of the Minutes of Evidence, their lordships would find that Barbara Kress, upon being asked who told her she should receive compensation? replied, "The minister, our minister;" and upon being subsequently asked by the interpreter what minister she was speaking of, she said, "Monsieur de Berckstett; that gentleman told me that if I would not go voluntarily, I should be forced.*" Here, then, was proof that a witness in support of the charge was under a compulsory threat of a minister of the power to which she was subject, to give evidence, against her will, at this bar. They were now told by the counsel at the bar, that the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden was a witness material to the Queen's defence; that he had been appointed to attend upon her during her residence at Baden, and that he was able to prove many facts contradictory to the evidence of Barbara Kress. It was stated, that he had been repeatedly applied to by the agents of her majesty; no less than three special messengers had been sent both to the chamberlain and the grand duke himself, and though the chamberlain had expressed his readiness to attend on the part of the Queen, he had been prevented from coming by an authority which he was unable to resist. He would not take upon himself to express any opinion as to the propriety of enforcing the attendance of witnesses either on the one side or the other;
* See Vol. 2, p. 1078.

293
but admitting, for the sake of argument, that it was right to use our influence with foreign governments to obtain evidence in favour of the charge, he was sure it would he granted that that influence ought to have been equally exerted on the other side. It appeared, however, from the statement of counsel, that influence had not only not been equally exerted, but, on the contrary, directly employed to prevent the Queen from bringing over witnesses who were material to her defence. If that were proved, he had no hesitation in saying, that it was so foul an interference with the administration of justice, that, in his opinion, it would be the duty of their lordships at once to suspend the proceedings. But this was not the only instance in which obstructions had been thrown in the way of the Queen's defence. General Pino had, indeed, been permitted by his government to come over, but it was under the condition that he should not wear his uniform; a condition of so extraordinary a nature, that some explanation was rendered necessary, as to whether it would not amount to the loss of his rank and station in the army? General Pino did not consent to come over upon terms which might have involved a sacrifice of his professional rank and character. Such were the statements which had been made; he could know nothing of their accuracy; and shame be upon those who made these assertions, if they were not proved. It having, however, been distinctly stated, that the course of justice had been obstructed by depriving the Queen of the means of obtaining the witnesses necessary for her defence, while all the influence and authority of ministers had been exerted to bring witnesses against her, he was sure their lordships would not deem it improper in him to suggest, that her majesty's counsel should be asked, whether they were prepared to prove the assertions made by the counsel at the bar, and if so, that they should be called upon to proceed to that proof before any other part of the case.
The Earl of Liverpoolagreed entirely with the noble earl, that all they were doing in this case would be nothing more than a mockery of justice, if strict impartiality were not observed, as to the production of witnesses both on one side of the case, and on the other. Undoubtedly, whatever influence was exerted on one side ought to be equally applied to the
294
other, subject of course to the same restrictions and qualifications. Before he applied himself to the observations which had been made by the noble earl, he felt it necessary, in justice to the king's government, and to that particular department to which he more immediately belonged, to state some circumstances which he had the means of proving, if necessary, at their lordships' bar, and which he was persuaded, Dr. Lushington and Mr. Vizard, the persons who were consulted on this subject, would be ready to acknowledge. Those gentlemen were informed at the commencement of this proceeding, that whatever requisitions they wished to be made to foreign governments, should be immediately made upon application at the Secretary of state's office. Not only was this stated to them, but, what is not very usual on such occasions, as is well-known to persons acquainted with official details, copies of all instructions given to our ambassadors at foreign courts, were shown them, and, if he was not mistaken, given to them. The courtesy of government did not even stop here, for they were told, if an agent were appointed by them, for the purpose of collecting evidence, this government would write to the Austrian government, to desire that, upon the requisition of that agent, facilities might be afforded him, without the necessity of a previous application to the British minister, or any other authority whatever. It was of course necessary, that there should be some fixed responsible agent, acting in a similar capacity with colonel Browne on the part of the prosecution; and in consequence of this suggestion, an individual, he believed Mr. Henry, had been appointed on the part of her majesty. He stated these circumstances, in order to satisfy their lordships that nothing had been omitted, on the part of government, to facilitate the means of obtaining witnesses for her majesty's defence. If any special difficulties had arisen in particular cases, as at Baden, for instance, where we had no resident minister, he would undertake to say, that if her majesty's counsel, instead of sending a second and a third messenger, had only made application at the Foreign office, not a moment would have been lost in sending over to Baden, and taking every necessary step for the removal of those difficulties. Even now, he would undertake to say, that if her majesty's counsel declared those witnesses to be material to her defence, two hours

295
should not elapse before a special messenger should be sent over. He could not, however, avoid suggesting, that the cause of a requisition not having been made, might have arisen from other circumstances known to the counsel themselves, but not known to their lordships. Whether some reasons might not have operated with her majesty's counsel for omitting to make any application to government after the refusal at Baden, it was not for him to determine. With respect to the difficulty which had occurred in the north of Italy, he would only observe, that he was anxious that the instructions which have been given in that quarter, should be laid before their lordships. For his own part, he did not believe the excuse made by general Pino to be the true cause of his not appearing on behalf of her majesty. He had seen the correspondence which had taken place with the Austrian government, and it was certainly true that that government had thought proper, particularly after what occurred at Dover, to lay down a general rule, that no officer who should come over to this country, should appear in the Austrian uniform. He believed this was the ordinary usage, but admitting it to be an arbitrary rule, it applied equally to the witnesses on both sides, and might be deemed a necessary precaution under all the circumstances, when it was known that a great excitement of the public feeling prevailed. As to such a regulation being derogatory to the individuals upon whom it was imposed, he confessed that he was unable to view it in that light. Nothing, in fact, was more common, than that officers not on actual duty should appear in a plain dress, and in this very proceeding, two most respectable officers in the British navy had given evidence, not in their naval uniform, but appearing merely as private gentlemen. He believed that no such reason as that stated by her majesty's counsel had operated upon general Pino's mind, and that he had declined coming for some reason best known to himself. He again pledged himself, that if the learned counsel, even at this period, thought the evidence of the chamberlain material to her majesty's defence, not an hour should be lost in sending over a special messenger to Baden.
The Duke of Wellingtonexplained the practice which prevailed in the Austrian service with respect to the wearing of uniforms, and vindicated the motives which
296
had induced the Austrian government, on the present occasion, to prevent the possibility of their uniform being subjected to disgrace.
The Counsel were again called in, and the Counsel for the Queen were informed, by the lord Chancellor, that it was the wish of the House that they should state whether they were prepared to prove the facts they had stated at the bar, respecting the Chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden and general Pino.
Mr. Broughamstated, that in the arrangement of the evidence he had not anticipated the calling evidence to this part of the Case so early in the proof, and that in consequence the witnesses who must prove a part of those particulars were still abroad; that he was prepared to put in the correspondence with Mr. Henry, who was at the head of her majesty's affairs at Milan, which was such as would enable any solicitor to make an affidavit in a common cause in a court of justice of his information and belief, but that he was prepared with more specific proof of the circumstances attending the absence of the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden. That he admitted the government of this country had offered to the legal advisers of her majesty all facilities in their power for the procuring the attendance of witnesses, but that her majesty's advisers were not satisfied how far the power of this government might go in procuring the attendance of witnesses against the bill; and that objections had been felt to stating, at a distance of time before their production, the names of the witnesses whom it was meant to call, in consequence of circumstances which it would be his duty to prove in the progress of his case.
Earl Greythought the fact of her majesty's counsel having omitted to make any application to his majesty's government, made a material difference in the view which he had taken of the circumstances. He now thought it unnecessary to enter immediately into this part of the case, unless, her majesty's counsel considered it material to her defence. The best course would be to inquire of the counsel whether they were of that opinion.
The Lord Chancellorinquired of her majesty's counsel, whether they thought it material to proceed immediately with the circumstances respecting the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden?
Mr. Broughamsaid, most unquestionably they were of that opinion. In addition to the reasons which he had already stated, for not applying to his majesty's government, there was another, and a most cogent reason, namely, that it was not above a day or two ago that they were aware of this insurmountable difficulty.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that in point of fact there was no charge against his majesty's ministers, either by the noble earl, or by the counsel at the bar. The learned counsel had thought fit to conclude, that the influence which had been successfully exerted in one instance, would not be effectual in another, but at all events he ought to have made the attempt. If he had clone this, and the attempt had been ineffectual, it would then have been time enough to have cast imputations upon the motives and conduct of ministers, but he had no right to assume that government would have refused assistance, when that assistance had never been required. Under these circumstances, he submitted to their lordships that there was no necessity for going into the examination of witnesses, with the view which had been suggested by the noble earl.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if the counsel at the bar thought it material to the defence of their client, to call witnesses at any part of the case, they ought to be allowed to do so. Whether they thought proper to examine witnesses upon a particular part of the case now or hereafter, was a point which he thought should be left entirely to their own discretion. At the same time he must take the liberty of saying, that though the examination of witnesses respecting the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden might be very material in many other respects, it could have no effect whatever with respect to a suspension of this proceeding. The want of power on the part of her majesty to compel the attendance of her witnesses would be a most important consideration, whenever they came to decide upon the merits of the case. Their lordships order operated upon witnesses in this country with all the force of a subpoena, but there were no means of compelling the attendance of a foreigner, except by the influence which government possessed with foreign powers. He must say, however, that no suspicion could possibly attach to the conduct of ministers, because the
298
counsel had thought fit in the exercise, he had no doubt, of an honourable discretion, to decline the only means of compelling the attendance of witnesses. With respect to the period at which the witnesses were to be called, he was decidedly of opinion, that the counsel had a right to exercise their own discretion.
Earl Greyagreed with the noble and learned lord, that the circumstance of her majesty's counsel having omitted to make any application to government sufficiently exonerated his majesty's ministers from the charge of having in this instance obstructed her defence.
The Earl of Donoughmorethought that their lordships ought not to pass over the charge which had been brought against his majesty's government by the counsel at the bar. The statement went so far as to say, that witnesses had been compelled by the executive power, to come in support of this bill, and that compulsion had been used by foreign powers, unresisted by our own government, to prevent witnesses from coming. Much of inflammation and misrepresentation had gone forth to prejudice the public mind, and he trusted their lordships would in future resist such conduct in limine. The noble lords who wished the inquiry to go on had been represented as culprits. Imputations were cast upon his majesty's government, which were disproved even by the statements of the counsel who made them. If the queen wanted witnesses, whose fault was it? Her majesty's counsel had not made that application which could alone ensure the attendance of those witnesses. He trusted the House would assert its own dignity, and not permit the insinuations of the counsel upon his majesty's government to pass unnoticed and unrestrained.
Lord Hollanddefended the conduct of the Queen's counsel, and contended, that his noble friend was not perfectly consistent when he complained of that conduct. The Queen's counsel complained that the arm of power had prevented them from producing their witnesses. It was not for the counsel to explain the motives which had led to the exercise of that power, or to show the source from which that arm of power had proceeded. In the discharge of their professional duty, the Queen's counsel had, in his opinion, conducted themselves ably, temperately, and properly; and if they had neglected to state any part of the evidence, which was material

299
to her majesty's defence, they would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. He called upon his noble friend to reflect seriously upon the effect which might be produced, in the present irritated and agitated state of the public mind, if their lordships allowed themselves to interrupt the course of the proceedings by answering the supposed arguments, and repelling the supposed insinuations of her majesty's counsel. It was not necessary for him to express an opinion as to what might be considered an insinuation, but he supposed that counsel had, in every case, an undoubted right to make an impression favourable to their clients upon the minds of the judges. If, however, the counsel were to step beyond the bounds assigned to him by the established rules of the court, it would then be competent for the Court to say, "You are going beyond the line which has been marked out for you, you are now treading upon ground which you have no right to touch, and you must confine yourself to those limits which have been invariably assigned to you." But he submitted, that after a counsel had been permitted to make his observations, whatever they were, it was not becoming in that House, nor did their lordships consult their own dignity, if they afterwards entered into an altercation with that counsel. It was their lordships' duty to decide judicially upon the case before them, but it was no part of their duty to answer the observations of counsel.
The Lord-Chancellorfully concurred with the noble lord, that the House should not enter into any altercation with the counsel at their lordships' bar. If any improper observations had been made by the counsel, he was bound to apologise to the House for not having interposed. But their lordships were aware of the duties which it fell to his lot to discharge, and how difficult it was to discharge them. He certainly could not see, that there had been any reason for interposing. It was not without great hazard that a judge could take upon himself to determine how far a certain line of observation was or was not material to the case of a counsel. In this instance, the counsel had argued, that under all the circumstances, they ought not to be called upon to produce evidence at all, and they urged the peculiar difficulties which they said, had been thrown in the way of
300
producing witnesses for her majesty. They then proceeded to state, that the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden generally attended upon her majesty, and would have been a witness material to her defence; that letters had been sent by the brother of Mr. Brougham both to the chamberlain and to the grand duke himself, and that the chamberlain was willing to come, but had been forbidden by his court. There was nothing here, he thought, to call for interposition. No imputations whatever had been cast upon his majesty's government. Something had been said of general Pino and his uniform, but he saw nothing in all this to justify the assertion that the counsel had dealt in insinuations. If he had any fault to find with the learned counsel, it was not for what he had said, but for what he had suppressed in the way of insinuation, for after making some observations upon physicians, he added, that "lawyers were kept away—any body might judge why" [A laugh].
The Counsel were directed to proceed.
Then James Lemonwas called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Den-man, as follows:
Are you a clerk to Mr. Vizard, the solicitor for her majesty? I am.
Were you sent by her majesty to Carlsruhe? I was.
On what day did you leave England? On the 1st of September.
On what day did you arrive at Carlsruhe? On the 14th of September.
Were you provided with any letters from her majesty, addressed to any gentleman at Carlsruhe? I had a letter from her majesty, directed to the chamberlain of the grand duke of Baden, the baron d'Ende.
Did you inform the chamberlain that he was required as a witness upon this proceeding? Yes, I did.
Do you recollect on what day that was? It was on the 17th that I first saw him.
Did you on that day make that communication to him? I did.
Did you take his deposition with a view to instruct the counsel for her majesty to examine him at the bar of this House? The chamberlain of the grand duke keeps minutes of the transactions of every day; those minutes were at Baden: it was at Carlsruhe I saw him: the first time I saw him was on the road between Carlsruhe and Baden; I met him.
You first saw him on the 17th, on the road between Carlsruhe and Baden? I did; I informed him that the object of my coming

301
was, to request that he would attend here as a witness on behalf of her majesty.
Did you at any time take his examination for the purpose of instructions to counsel? On the 20th.
Do you know whether he then had an opportunity of consulting his minutes? Yes, he had; his minutes were at Baden, and he consulted them while I was by.
You took that deposition at Baden? I did.
That was on the 20th of September? It was.
Do you know whether the grand duke was at that time at Carlsruhe? I know he was absent.
When did he return to Carlsruhe? On the 21st.
The day after you had taken this deposition? Yes.
Was the baron d'Ende willing to come as a witness to this country? Yes he was.
At the time that you took his deposition on the 20th? Yes, he was.
Did he state any condition on which alone he could come to this country? He said he could not come without the consent of the grand duke.
After the return of the grand duke to Carlsruhe did he then make any statement as to his coming to this country? He told me on the 23rd, which was the morning he had seen the grand duke, that the grand duke had refused to grant him permission to come.
Be so good as to state, if you can, the precise words he made use of? He came to me and stated, I have bad news for you, the grand duke will not let me go.
The Attorney Generalstated, that he would not interrupt the examination, unless it was supposed it might have a bearing upon the case itself; that if it was understood to be a collateral inquiry, with respect to the conduct of his majesty's government, or the interference of the grand duke, with that he had nothing to do.
The Counsel were informed, that in the opinion of the House that which the chamberlain had stated, as to the words of the grand duke, was not evidence; that it would he hereafter to be considered what was the effect of the Queen not having procured the witnesses she desired.
Mr. Denmanstated, that he did not examine to this as bearing upon the facts of the case.
Mr. Denman.—Did he state any other reason for not coming? I am not aware that he did; he stated that he enjoyed his Hanoverian estates through his majesty, or through his majesty's kindness; but that he would not let that be a difficulty in the way of his coming to this country as a witness, because he was satisfied his majesty would not think ill of him for coining as a witness.
Did you make any other application to him in regard to his deposition? I did; I wrote him a letter requesting him to make a deposition, before the legal authorities of the town, of the facts he had stated.
Did he do so? He did not.
Did he ever give you any other reason for not coming than that you have stated? No.
Did he give you any reason for not making that deposition? That he could not do it without the consent of the grand duke, and that he had not that consent.
Was there a person of the name of Mandeville there? There was.
Was he in the presence of yourself and the chamberlain? He was not.
At no time? No; but he was in the hotel that I was in, and I dined with him most days.
He knew of your being there? He did.
Did you communicate to him your being there on behalf of her majesty? I did not.
When did you return to this country? The day before yesterday.
Do you know whether, during your stay at Carlsruhe, any other person arrived on the part of her majesty the Queen? A Mr. Sicard.
Do you know that yourself? I saw him arrive.
You returned the day before yesterday? I reached London the day before yesterday.
Examined by the Lords.
Lord Grantham.—In what language did this pass between you and the chamberlain? Principally in English; he speaks English very well.
In what other language? In French.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then Anthony Butler St. Leger, esq. was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Denman as follows:
Were you chamberlain to her majesty the Queen? I had that honour.
How long did you continue in that office? About eleven years.
From what period? From 1808 to October 1819.
Did you go abroad with her majesty in the year 1814? I went as far as Brunswick with her majesty. Her majesty dispensed with my accompanying her on her tour, on account of my health, and on account of my family, and she was good enough only to require that I should attend her as far as Brunswick.
You say her tour, what tour do you refer to? Her intention of going abroad; it was then said Germany and Italy, as I understood.
Was that understood before you left England? It was so.
According to that permission, did you leave her majesty at Brunswick? According to that permission I left her majesty at Brunswick, as she was good enough to say, that

303
when I got to Brunswick I might return I when I chose.
In the course of the last year, the year 1819, did you receive any communication from her majesty? I received a communication, I think it was in the month of July or August, I cannot charge my memory at present which, that her majesty intended to be in England in the month of September.
The Attorney Generalobjected to communications between her majesty and Mr. St. Leger being received in evidence.
Mr. Denman.—In consequence of any communication you received, did you make any preparation? In consequence of that communication, I prepared to go and meet her majesty, as she desired, at Dover.
Has the state of your health rendered it impossible for you to attend her majesty from the time you left her at Brunswick till the present time? The state of my health has been such that unfortunately I could not attend her majesty; I have been obliged to go into Devonshire for five years past, where I have been entirely confined all the evenings during the winter months.
Since her majesty's return to this country, have you paid your respects to her? Immediately on her majesty's return to this country I paid my respects to her.
In consequence of the state of your health, did you resign your office? In consequence of the state of my health only; I had the honour of communicating to her majesty that I should be prevented attending her, and I requested her on that ground to receive my resignation.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Then the Earl of Guilford was sworn by the Lord Chancellor, at the table, and was examined in his place, and by leave of the House, as also with the permission of the earl of Guilford, the questions were put directly to his lordship by the Counsel, Mr. Tindal, instead of to the Lord Chancellor in the first instance, and through him to his lordship, as is the usage and practice of the House.
Does your lordship recollect when her present majesty was at Naples? I recollect coming to Naples after her majesty was there. Her majesty was already there when I arrived at Naples.
About what time was it when your lordship arrived there? I think it was in the very beginning of March in the year of our Lord 1815.
Did any one accompany your lordship upon that occasion? My sister lady Charlotte, Lindsay.
When your lordship arrived at Naples, who formed the suite of her majesty? To the best of my recollection the suite of her majesty were formed by lady Elizabeth Forbes, the
304
hon. Keppel Craven, and sir William Gell, and Dr. Holland was there as her physician at the time.
Does your lordship remember at that time any person of the name of Pergami? Yes, I recollect seeing that person.
In what situation was that person at the time your lordship first saw him? As far as I understood, he was courier.
How long did your lordship remain at Naples? I remained at Naples only three or four days; three days to the best of my recollection.
Was lady Charlotte Lindsay with your lordship when you went there, or did she arrive afterwards? She arrived together with me; we travelled together from Nice to Naples.
Did lady Charlotte Lindsay accompany your lordship when you left Naples? No, she did not; I left Naples before her.
Where did your lordship next see the Queen? At Rome.
What interval was there between your seeing her at Naples and seeing her again at Rome? A very few days; the exact number of days I cannot remember, but it was but a few days before I saw her majesty at Naples.
How long did her majesty remain at Rome? A very few days, I think not more than two or three days; I know it was a very short time.
During that time did your lordship dine with her majesty? I do not think I did at Rome.
Had your lordship dined with her before at Naples? Yes, I had dined with her once at Naples.
Does your lordship recollect who dined there upon that occasion? Particularly I do not remember; there was a considerable party, but the particular individuals who dined there I do not call to my recollection; there were a good many English persons.
Were there any of the nobility of the court of Naples? That I cannot positively recollect.
Did lady Charlotte Lindsay dine there on that day? She did.
Can your lordship recollect whether Mrs: Falconet was one of the party? Whether she dined there on that specific day I do not recollect.
Besides dining with her majesty at Naples, had you other opportunities of seeing her? Only once, the morning of my arrival.
After leaving Rome, where did your lordship next see her majesty? At Civita Vecchia.
Did not her majesty embark at Civita Vecchia to go to Genoa? She did.
How long had she staid there before she embarked? Five or six days; a short time; I think it did not exceed a week.
Did your lordship and lady Charlotte Lindsay form part of her party whilst she was at Civita Vecchia? We dwelt in the same; house with her majesty.
And of course lived at table with her majesty? Every day; always.
During that time were any other persons invited, during the stay at Civita Vecchia? The persons invited were, the master of the house, the marchese Mansi, one day, and the other persons of the family.
Are those the persons whom your lordship has before enumerated as forming her majesty's suite when at Naples? No, with the exception of Dr. Holland; Dr. Holland was there; the other persons were not there.
Was Mrs. Falconet there? She was there.
Had Mrs. Falconet any daughters? She had two daughters.
Of what age might those daughters be? The eldest was a young lady, I suppose of fifteen or sixteen and the other was younger.
Does your lordship know who Mrs. Falconet was? I had known Mrs. Falconet before that time in England; she was either an English woman or an American, I believe an American by birth.
In what situation of life was Mrs. Falconet? She was before in a very reputable situation, and was married to Mr. Falconet a banker at Naples.
Is he a person in a considerable line of business? Very considerable.
Does your lordship know, whether she was a person who associated with the first ranks in that country? As far as persons in her situation associated with the principal people, I believe she did; I had not been then acquainted with her for a great while, but I have every reason to believe she did.
Does your lordship know, whether Mrs. Falconet was received among the first ranks of English in that country? I cannot speak particularly to that, not having seen her for some time before.
Does your lordship know, whether one of the daughters of Mrs. Falconet afterwards married an Italian of considerable station in society? I believe she has two daughters married, as far as I understand; one of them I have seen, who is married to an American gentleman of the name of Middleton, and the other, as I have heard, to monsieur Portallis.
Do you mean Mr. Portallis a considerable banker and proprietor in Switzerland? That I really do not know, I have heard his name, but never saw him.
Are those two ladies whom you have mentioned the same two daughters you met at Civita Vecchia, or other two? No, other two daughters; I believe both those ladies were married at that time.
Did the two unmarried daughters whom you met there dine at the table with her majesty? They did.
When her majesty embarked, it was on board the Clorinde, was it not? It was.
Did your lordship embark with her? I did.
And lady Charlotte Lindsay? And lady Charlotte Lindsay.
Who else embarked in the suite of her majesty? Madame Falconet did, and her two daughters, and Dr. Holland.
Where did your lordship and lady Charlotte Lindsay disembark? We disembarked at Leghorn.
From that time there was a considerable interval before your lordship met her majesty again? There was a very considerable time that summer; I did not see her majesty again till the month of November in the year 1815.
Where was it that your lordship then saw her? At the Villa d'Este, her house on the lake of Como.
Was your lordship accompanied at that time by lady Charlotte Lindsay? No, I was not; I saw her first on the lake of Como, in paying my respects to her at her Villa.
Where was lady Charlotte Lindsay at that time? In England.
Did your lordship dine there upon that occasion? I did.
At that time was Pergami sitting at the table of her majesty? He was.
Had you ever seen him before silting at her majesty's table? Never.
Did your lordship stay longer upon that occasion than the day on which yon dined there? No, I went away that evening.
Where did your lordship go to? I slept at the town of Como that night, and the next day I went to Milan.
Did your lordship afterwards, while you were in that country, pay her majesty a second visit? I did; the Sunday following I dined with her majesty at Milan.
When you were there the first time, had you intended to pay a longer visit to her majesty than the dining with her? I do not recollect that I had. I had no particular intention. I was at the time travelling, and only intended to pay my respects to her majesty. I do not charge my memory that I had any intention of staying longer.
Your lordship is understood to have stated that you dined there the Sunday following? The Sunday following at Milan: when I saw her majesty on the lake of Como, her majesty invited me to dine with her the following Sunday at Milan.
Was Pergami at the table that second time? He was.
Has your lordship seen her majesty since that time? I have not.
Cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General.
You have stated that while your lordship was at Naples, Pergami was in the situation of a courier; did it happen when your lordship dined with her majesty either at Naples or at Civita Vecchia, or on board the Clorinde, that he waited at table?. At Civita Vecchia he certainly did; I do not remember whether he did at Naples.
Did he so on board the Clorinde? I really do not recollect whether he did on board the Clorinde, I cannot positively charge my me-

307
mory with that circumstance; I remember it well at Civita Vecchia, and I rather think he did on board the Clorinde.
Did lady Charlotte Lindsay hold at that time any situation in her majesty's suite? She was lady of the bed-chamber to her majesty, then her royal highness.
When did she quit that situation? She quitted that situation to the best of my recollection, for I was then out of England, in the beginning of the year 1817, about the month of May, I think, in the year 1817.
Although you say she quitted the situation in 1817, she was not actually in her majesty's suite after she left her in Italy? After she left her at Leghorn, to the best of my knowledge, my sister never joined her majesty.
When you visited her majesty at the Villa d'Este, was there any lady in attendance upon her at that time? There was an Italian lady, who I understood was the countess Oldi.
In the course of dining with her majesty at the Villa d'Este, did you occasionally converse with that lady? Very little, I had some Conversation.
From your conversation with her, did she speak the Patois, or the pure Italian? She spoke, to the best of my recollection, a very good intelligible Italian, with rather an accent of the Lombardy, but not very remarkable: we had no very long conversation.
When you visited her majesty at the Villa d'Este, did you see her grounds? I did.
Do you remember whether you had a Greek or an Albanian servant with your lordship at that time? I had a Greek servant with me at the time.
Did her majesty accompany you into the grounds? Her majesty first showed me great part of her gardens, and afterwards lent me her donkey to ride upon to see the rest.
Does your lordship recollect in what part of your tour round the gardens it was that you mounted the donkey? I mounted it I think very near the door, I went afterwards round the olive yard and other places in the grounds.
In going round the grounds, or at the time of coming out, did your lordship see her royal highness in the grounds? While I walked with her royal highness I saw her, but I do not recollect to have seen her walking about the grounds after that.
Do you recollect seeing your servant walking about the grounds? I do not remember to have seen him, though I might have seen him walking about the grounds.
Does your lordship remember whether you did see him walking about the grounds? No, it is a thing I have not charged my memory with.
Your lordship never stated you saw your servant in those grounds? Not that I saw him in the grounds, I heard that he had walked round them.
Do you recollect having stated that you had seen him in any part of those grounds
308
with her royal highness? Not with her royal highness, certainly; I might have seen him with her royal highness; I did not take notice of his being walking with her royal highness; there were people walking about in the grounds and the gardens.
Will your lordship have the goodness to recollect whether you did not see him walking in the gardens with her royal highness? I do not remember that I did.
Or going any where? Nor going any where; I do not recollect the circumstance.
Does your lordship remember a Summer-house or grotto? I remember perfectly her royal highness showing it me.
Does your lordship recollect seeing her royal highness with your servant near that grotto? No, certainly not.
Has your lordship never stated that you saw her royal highness? I never stated that I had seen him with her royal highness, that I had seen him with her in the grotto, certainly not.
Nor in the grounds? She might have been walking with him, but I do not recollect having seen it, or having stated it.
Is your lordship to be understood to state, that you do not now remember whether the circumstance took plate or mot? Certainly.
That it might have taken place, but you do not recollect it? It might have taken place, but I do not recollect it.
That your lordship might have seen it, but you do not-recollect it? They might have been in the garden, but I do not recollect it striking me as any thing remarkable.
Then if it did not strike your lordship as any thing remarkable, it is not likely your lordship should so state that to any one? Certainly.
Will your lordship undertake to say you never have stated that? I can undertake to say I never have said I had seen them together in the grotto.
Or on that day? On that day certainly I have no recollection of it; I do; not mean to say I did not See them in the garden, but I do not recollect it.
Had your lordship been accustomed to ride at that time? I had not been a great rider, but at that time I only rode upon a donkey.
Who requested your lordship to ride-upon the donkey? The princess of Wales.
Did she urge your lordship to ride round the grounds on the donkey? She certainly did.
Where was your lordship's servant at that time? In the house I believe, or in the grounds; he went with mc to the house I recollect perfectly, and was there walking about, I do not know where about he was in the grounds; I know he was at the place.
How long did that 'servant remain with your lordship afterwards? He remained till the year 1817; he left me at Venice in the month of May 1817.
Previous to jour sister.lady Charlotte Lindsay quilling the situation with her. royal highness, had your lordship any conversation with her upon that subject? I had correspondence with her.
Did you recommend to lady Charlotte Lindsay the propriety of resigning the situation which she held about the person of her royal highness? I did advise her to resign it.
What were the considerations which induced you to give that advice.
Mr. Broughamhere desired to remind their lordships that this was a question addressed to points on which he had been restrained from entering.
The Lord Chancelloragreed with the learned counsel, that the examination was taking an irregular course, and it might indeed be adviseable to expunge the preceding question and answer.
Mr. Gurney was then directed to obliterate the passage from his notes.
Re-examined by Mr. Tindal.
Can your lordship recollect what the size of this garden was? It was a formal Italian garden, of what size I cannot now precisely recollect.
Your lordship cannot recollect the number of acres within a few? No, I cannot; It was a handsome fair garden.
At the different times, whenever your lordship has seen her royal highness and Pergami together, have you ever observed any impropriety of conduct in her royal highness?
The Attorney General submitted that this did not arise out of the cross-examination.
The Counsel were informed, that it ought to have been asked on original examination, or that if now asked, it would let in the attorney-general to put further questions upon it.
Examined by the Lords.
Lord Rous.—When you saw her royal highness on the lake of Como, was any body with her? Yes, Pergami.
Was any other person with her in the boat? No.
Earl Grey.—At any time when yon have been at her royal highness's, and Pergami was in company, have you ever seen any improper familiarity between them? No, certainly none.
Your lordship has stated that in the countess Oldi's language there was a slight accent of Lombardy, but nothing very remarkable? Nothing very remarkable; we conversed together, and what she answered was perfectly good Italian, but with an accent.
What observation did your lordship make upon her manners? That her manners were perfectly inoffensive; that there was nothing remarkable about them, very modest, not particularly vulgar.
Nothing you would denominate as vulgar?
310
Not as vulgar, certainly not; the exact shade of vulgarity I cannot now charge my memory with; I do not remember having considered her as vulgar in her conversation with me, not the least; I do not remember that the impression upon my mind was that, of having conversed with a vulgar woman.
Did you observe any particular difference between the manners of the countess Oldi and other Italian ladies? I cannot say that I did; she did not strike me as being a woman of remarkably fascinating manners, remarkably refined; but I did not see any great difference between her and other Italian ladies.
Earl of Liverpool.—Were her manners and conversation, the manners and conversation of a person who had been well educated, and who had lived in good society? Upon that subject I really knew her so little, I only conversed with her a very few words during the dinner, and I could not form any opinion of that sort as to the extent of her education; our conversation was extremely short, and there was nothing at all remarkable in the conversation.
How often did you meet countess Oldi? Only twice; once at the Villa d'Este, and the other time at Milan.
Did you at that time know that she was the sister of Pergami? To my certain knowledge no; I heard she was the sister of Pergami; I heard it I think before I was at Como, but I certainly heard it before I was at Milan.
Lord Erskine.—Did not your lordship state, I observed nothing vulgar in her conversation, not the least? My conversation with her was very short, I was not struck with any thing vulgar.
Earl of Lauderdale—When your lordship dined with her royal highness at Como, did you sit next her royal highness? I did.
Where did Pergami sit? On the other side of her royal highness.
When your lordship dined at Milan with her royal highness, where did you then sit? I sat by her royal highness's side.
Where did Pergami sit? He sat on the other side.
Did he, during the time of dinner, receive any attentions from her royal highness? No particular attentions certainly.
Did your lordship? Her royal highness was exceedingly gracious to me, and conversed with me.
Did you observe how she conducted herself in relation to Pergami? I perceived nothing particular in her royal highness's manner to Pergami at either of those interviews.
Where did countess Oldi sit? She sat on the other side of me at Como; I believe she did at Milan, but I cannot speak with certainty.
Who was at table besides those you have mentioned? Lieutenant Hownam, William Austin, and an Italian gentleman, as I understood, a medical man, who they said

311
had been at Pavia, that he had been employed there.
Was it the same company at Como and at Milan? It was, to the best of my recollection.
Lord Kenyon.—What was the size of the boat in which the princess and Pergami were on the lake of Como? A very small one, a small boat.
Did your lordship observe the boat more when you were approaching it? No, when we approached the boat after her royal highness had spoken to me, Pergami rowed it to the shore.
At what distance was that boat from the shore when yea saw it? I cannot tell; not at any great distance; my boat, and that of her royal highness came to the shore together. I was in another boat on the lake.
When your lordship saw the boat move, was it in consequence of Pergami rowing the boat? Certainly.
Earl Bathurst.—Did her royal highness introduce you to Pergami? She said, pointing to him, "Voici Monsieur Pergami."
Did she, either at Como or at Milan, give you any reason for having advanced him to the situation he then held? No, she did not.
Did she introduce the countess of Oldi to you? She did.
Did she introduce countess Oldi to your lordship as the sister of Pergami? No, I am pretty sure she did not; I should have remarked it if she had.
Earl of Darlington.—What was the deportment of Pergami towards her royal highness? Nothing particular; very respectful.
Was the ground or garden your lordship alludes to immediately joining the Villa d'Este? The garden in which her royal highness walked with me was directly behind the house; the vineyards through which I rode were immediately adjoining to that garden.
Your lordship observed, you did not recollect the exact size of that garden? I do not.
Was it more than one acre of ground? I really cannot give any opinion upon its size, I should think it was more; there was a large Italian regular garden.
Earl of Belmore.—Did your sister, lady Charlotte Lindsay, leave the princess of Wales's service of her own accord, or was she dismissed? She left it of her own accord.
Did your lordship recommend to her to do so? I did.
What were the reasons or motives which induced your lordship to make that recommendation?—
Mr. Brougham objected to this question as one which counsel had been restrained from putting.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, it ought to be understood that every peer was in the situation of a judge, and was entitled to put any question that was not in itself illegal.
The Marquis of Lansdownobserved, that they were all undoubtedly in the situation of judges, but it behoved them to act concurrently, and to render their proceedings as similar as possible to those over which a single judge presided.
The Earl of Belmorewas of opinion that the question he had put was one of considerable importance, as regarding the merits of the case, but he was perfectly ready to withdraw it, if in their lordships judgment, it appeared irregular.
The question was withdrawn; and the preceding question and answer were ordered to be struck out.
Lord Ellenborough.—Did your lordship make any particular observations on the manners of Pergami? The observations I made on the manners of Pergami were, that they were perfectly unobtrusive, that he was not forward; that was the only observation I made. I have been asked, whether I had a Greek servant in the garden behind the House, to the best of my recollection I had; and that I mentioned the having a Greek servant to her royal highness; but more than that I do not recollect. She observed his dress; but as to having seen them walking together, I have no remembrance of the circumstance. I have, upon this subject, but a very imperfect recollection, but I think I did mention him, in walking in the garden, as a Greek servant, observing that I had him from Athens; he was in the dress of the country.
Had your lordship any conversation with Pergami? No particular conversation: Pergami spoke but little while I was there; and I think the only time when I was ever in a room alone with Pergami was in the gallery of the house at Milan, when he showed me some pictures; but I do not remember any particular conversation.
From the opportunities your lordship had of observing the behaviour of Pergami, could you form any opinion of his being superior to the situation in which he had formerly lived? No, it did not strike me that he was.
This question and the answer were read at the request of Mr. Denman to his lordship, and he stated that the answer was correct.
Then the Right Hon. Lord Glenbervie was called, and sworn by the Lord Chancellor, at the table, and examined by Mr. Wilde as follows:
Did your lordship see her present majesty at the time she was princess of Wales at any time at Genoa? I did.
Were you at that time accompanied by lady Glenbervie? I was.
Did her ladyship for any period form any part of the suite of her royal highness? No, not at that time.
Did her ladyship, at any time during the period your lordship was at Genoa, attend in the suite of her royal highness? She did.
In what way? When her royal highness arrived at Genoa, lady Glenbervie and I were there; lady Glenbervie was not in her service at that time, but lady Charlotte Campbell was expected from Nice; the frigate that brought the princess was sent on immediately to Nice, to fetch lady Charlotte Campbell; lady Glenbervie having been formerly one of the ladies of the bed-chamber to the princess, finding herself at Genoa, proposed to the princess, who had none of her ladies with her then, to attend her till the arrival of lady Charlotte Campbell.
Did your lordship, during the time that lady Glenbervie was in attendance upon the princess of Wales, dine at the table of her royal highness? Frequently.
For what period? Her royal highness arrived, I think, on the 26th of March; lady Glenbervie and I continued there till the 17th of May: the princess did not leave Genoa, I think, till the day after we did, which would be the 18th; during that period very frequently dined with the princess, but not every day.
Did your lordship during that time see a person of the name of Pergami? I saw him every day that I dined there.
What was the conduct which your lordship observed in her royal highness during that period towards Pergami? Pergami waited behind her royal highness's back, in the habit of a courier; it happened to me often to have the honour of sitting next her, and all that I saw was the behaviour of any mistress of her rank to her servant waiting behind her; he often helped her and me to wine and to other things.
What was the conduct observed by Pergami towards her royal highness? That of a servant.
Was it respectful, becoming his then situation, or otherwise? I did not pay any particular attention, but if there had been any thing like disrespect. I must have observed it.
Has your lordship mentioned the year? This was in the year 1815.
What company did your lordship meet at her royal highness's table during that period? Mrs. Falconet and her two daughters, and Mr. Hownam, a lieutenant in the navy, lady Charlotte Campbell after she arrived, which was some days, about a week perhaps after the princess arrived, Dr. Holland also most days, I am not sure he did not all, and also some Genoese noblemen, one I particularly recollect, the marchese John Carlo Negri, and some English gentlemen, I think some officers of the navy; indeed I am sure the captain of the frigate that brought the princess.
Did your lordship sec lady William Bentinck there? I saw her at Genoa.
At her royal highness's? Yes, I think I did, at a ball, and I believe at a party; whether she dined there or not I cannot state.
Can your lordship recollect attending any of the halls given by her royal highness? The only ball I recollect, I was at.
Did your lordship meet there the persons of rank of the place? All the society I was in the habit of meeting, the principal ladies and gentlemen of the place.
Cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General.
Your lordship did not live in the house? I did not live in the house, nor lady Glenbervie.
When lady Charlotte Campbell arrived, which was after the interval of a week, lady Glenbervie ceased to act in the situation she had before occupied? Yes, she did; but she was often there at dinner.
How many times, on an average, might your lordship have dined there; two or three times in a week, or how often? Yes, two or three times, or more.
Is your lordship to be understood to state that Pergami at that time appeared in the dress of a servant? A fancy dress, the dress of a courier according to my recollection.
Examined by the Lords.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Did your lordship meet captain Pechell of the Clorinde at dinner at the princess's? I think I did.
Then his lordship withdrew.
Then Lady Chariotte Lindsay was called in, and having been sworn, was examined by Dr. Lusnington as follows:
Did you ever form a part of the suite of her royal highness the princess of Wales? Yes, I did.
When did you first enter her royal highness's service? I first entered her royal highness's service, I think, but I cannot be entirely certain, in the year 1808.
Did your ladyship attend her royal highness when she went abroad in 1814? I did.
Was not your ladyship one of the ladies of the bed-chamber? I was.
How far did you go with the princess of Wales upon that journey? I accompanied her royal highness as far as Brunswick.
Why did your ladyship not go further? It never was understood by her royal highness nor by me that I was to go further than merely to accompany her to Brunswick.
When did your ladyship again see her royal highness? I saw herroyal highness at Naples in the beginning of March 1815.
Did you then act as lady of the bed-chamber to her royal highness? I did.
How long then did you continue with her royal highness? I joined her royal highness the beginning of March, remained with her royal highness as long as she staid at Naples, left Naples with her royal highness, accompanied her to Rome, from thence to Civita Vecchia, then embarked with her on board the Clorinde, and quitted her at Leghorn,

315
which was an arrangement that had been settled before we had met.
By whom was her royal highness visited while she was at Naples? She was visited by all the English of distinction there, and by the Neapolitans of distinction, and other foreigners.
Would your ladyship be pleased to state the names or some of those? Lord and lady Llandaft, lord and lady Gage, lord and lady Conyngham, lord and lady Holland, and, I believe, various others; lord Clare, lord Granville Somerset, lord Frederick Montague, lord and lady Oxford, and many young Englishmen; Mr. Fazakerly, Mr. Davenport, Mr. William Benkes, sir Humphey and lady Davy; there may be many others that I have forgotten.
Was her royal highness visited by Mrs. Falconet? She was.
And her daughter? And her daughter.
Was your ladyship on board the Clorinde with her royal highness? I was.
Does your ladyship remember where her royal highness slept? On board the Clorinde her royal highness slept in a part of the captain's cabin; it was divided into two, her royal highness slept in one half, and the captain and his brother in the other half, with a partition between.
Did any one sleep in that division of the cabin in which her royal highness slept? Yes, her maid.
Does your ladyship recollect any thing arising in consequence of the cabin being divided into two parts? I recollect no particular, except that her royal highness rather expressed her surprise, that the other half of the cabin had not been appropriated to my use, instead of the captain and his brother continuing to occupy it.
Did that occasion any difference between her royal highness and the captain? No, I did not observe any difference upon the subject of it; it was merely a remark she made to me.
Does your ladyship remember a person by the name of Pergami being in the service of her royal highness? I do.
In what capacity? As courier.
Had your ladyship opportunities of seeing what passed between her royal highness and Pergami? I was often in company with her royal highness when Pergami was attending.
How did he conduct himself? Just in the common way that a person in his situation would naturally conduct himself.
How did her royal highness conduct herself towards him? In the same manner that a mistress would conduct herself towards a servant.
Did your ladyship ever observe any impropriety of conduct between the princess of Wales and Pergami? Never.
When did your ladyship quit her royal highness's service? I sent in my resignation in the year 1817.
What was your ladyship's reason for resigning? My brother wrote to me requesting me to resign, and I complied with his request.
Has your ladyship seen her royal highness since she has returned to this country? I have.
Cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor General.
How long was it before her royal highness quitted Naples that you joined her? I should, think about twelve days, ten or twelve days.
How much time was so occupied in proceeding from Naples to Leghorn? We slept one night, in going to Home, staid two nights at Rome, I think we were six nights at Civita Vecchia, waiting for the frigate, and three nights on board the frigate.
Your ladyship is understood to have then left Leghorn, and not to have returned again into the service of her royal highness? I did not resign at that time.
You did not enter after that into the actual service of her royal highness? I left Leghorn for the purpose of having my brother to escort me home to England.
During the time you were at Civita Vecchia did you see Pergami? I did, every day.
Try and recollect with accuracy, whether you did not see him at Civita Vecchia, walking with her royal highness? Her royal highness and I frequently walked out together, and Pergami attended; he did not walk with us, but he walked a little way behind, a short distance behind.
Did that happen every time you walked out? Every time, as far as I can recollect.
Was there any other courier in the service of her royal highness at that time? I believe Hieronimus was also a courier, but I cannot be entirely certain; he was with us.
Does your ladyship mean to say, by saying that Hieronimus was with you, that he walked out with you? No, I do not recollect that he walked out.
Have you the least doubt that he did not walk out with you? I do not think that I had the honour of walking out above twice with her royal highness; I walked out with her every time she walked.
Your ladyship was understood before, to say, that you walked out several times with her royal highness? I might have walked out with her three times, perhaps, but I do not at this moment call to mind above twice that we walked; but I cannot positively swear that we might not have walked out three or four times.
Perhaps your ladyship will swear that you did not walk five or six times? Yes, I can swear that.
You will not undertake to say that you did not walk out four? No, but I think not.
But every time you did walk out, the courier who accompanied you then was Pergami? Yes.
Will your ladyship take upon yourself to swear, that upon no one of those occasions her royal highness walked arm in arm with Pergami? I have not any recollection of her walking arm in arm with Pergami.
Will your ladyship take upon yourself to swear she did not? I have no recollection of it; as far as I can recollect, Pergami attended us at a little distance, unless he was called to be asked a question.
Your ladyship is to be understood, that you will not swear that her royal highness did not walk, upon that occasion, arm in arm with Pergami? I certainly do not recollect that she ever did walk arm in arm with Pergami.
But you will not swear that she did not? I cannot positively swear, but I never was struck with it.
If such a thing bad happened, must it not have struck your ladyship? I suppose it would have struck me; and therefore I imagine it did not happen.
But you will not swear it did not happen? I will not swear, because she might have taken his arm upon some particular occasion; not that I recollect that she did, but it might have happened without my being struck with any thing extraordinary.
Your ladyship was understood to state, that if she had taken his arm it would have struck you as something extraordinary? If they had walked arm in arm, but she might have taken his arm.
But you think she might have taken his arm, though they did not walk arm in arm? She might have taken his arm, but I have no recollection of the circumstance.
Your ladyship filled the office of lady of the bed-chamber? I did.
That office did not necessarily lead you into her royal highness's bed-room? Very frequently it did; her royal highness sent for me very frequently.
At Naples? At Naples.
Was her royal highness always alone upon those occasions? Not always alone, certainly; sometimes there were persons with her.
Do you recollect ever upon any of those occasions seeing Pergami in the bed-room? I saw him myself in the bed-room, for we used to dine in the bed-room. I dined in the bed-room with the princess and William Austin, and Pergami used to wait upon us as a servant.
Was that during the time you were at Napies? During the time I was at Naples.
Did any other 'person, except William Austin and yourself and her royal highness dine upon those occasions in the bed-room? No, I think nobody but we three dined; but other servants used to bring in dishes.
Did that happen frequently while her royal highness was at Naples, during the time you were with her? Yes, that happened whenever her royal highness had not company to dinner, and excepting one day, when I went
318
to Pompei, and her royal highness gave roe leave of absence the whole day.
Upon those occasions did Pergami always wait? I think he did, but I cannot positively swear.
When was it that your ladyship quitted the service of her royal highness? In the year 1817.
Had any application been made to your ladyship to join her royal highness in Germany before you took the resolution of quitting? Yes, there had.
How long before? I cannot accurately remember how long before.
Was any proposition made about appointing colonel Lindsay to the situation of chamberlain to her royal highness?
Mr. Broughamobjected to the question. This was exactly the line of cross-examination (named, with reference to the contents of a written document, which document, if it existed, was the only evidence which ought to be produced) that the other side, after two hours argument, had prevented him from taking; and he therefore did not see why it should be taken by his learned friends. There was nothing at all in the question of any consequence; but as he had been prevented examining in the same way, he chose to object to it.
The Lord Chancellor was about to give his opinion (amid cries of "adjourn," and "go on,") when Mr. Brougham said, "I give up the objection; any thing to save your lordships' time."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, their lordships' object was not to save their time, but to do justice. If the objection was well founded it could not be given up by the counsel, because it was the duty of the House to suffer no question to be put which was improper. He suggested that the House should now adjourn and consider this point to-morrow.
The House accordingly adjourned.