Sitting of 27 October 1820

Preamble
The order of the day being read for the

1239
further consideration and second reading of the Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive "Her Majesty Caroline Amelia Elizabeth," &c. and for hearing Counsel for and against the same; the Counsel were accordingly called in, and
Mr. Attorney Generalwas heard in Reply, as follows:—
The Defence of her Majesty being now closed, it becomes my duty once more to address your lordships upon the case as it now stands before you in evidence. My lords, the importance of the case, the anxious interest which is taken in its result, would, I am sure, be alone sufficient to entitle me to your indulgent attention; and, my lords, no advocate ever stood more in need of it than I do upon the present occasion; not, my lords, because I am oppressed with the difficulty of the case—I feel it not; but because feel that your lordships attention has now been occupied for a long time upon this case—that my learned friends have been for the last three days addressing your lordships upon it—and that therefore your attention must be, to a certain extent, exhausted—the subject itself is become trite and stale; and therefore, my lords, I cannot but feel, independently of the consciousness of my own inability to do justice to the task which is imposed upon me, that I am asking at your lordships hands that which perhaps it is difficult, under the circumstances, to grant; and I cannot but feel that, under the mass of evidence which lies upon your lordships table, and the length of observations which have been made upon that evidence by my learned friends who advocate the case of her Majesty, I may be under the necessity of making a larger demand upon your lordships time than your lordships would in any other case than one of such importance be inclined to grant.
Before, however, I approach the facts of the case, allow me for a moment to advert to a topic which has been urged by every one of my learned friends, and to which such frequent recurrence has been made in the course of these proceedings; namely, the peculiar disadvantages under which her majesty has been placed in meeting the charges which are preferred against her. My lords, however that topic might have afforded scope for declamation when a list of witnesses and a specification of the charges were demanded, I cannot but think that it is wholly unsupported
1240
when your lordships come to consider the manner in which her majesty's defence has been permitted to be conducted. My lords, all the witnesses in support of these charges had been examined; the whole of the charges became known to her Majesty and her advisers; and your lordships, at that period of the case, did that which I have no doubt your lordships thought, under the peculiar circumstances of this extraordinary case, was due to her majesty; but which I trust will not stand as a precedent for such indulgence in future cases—your lordships permitted the case to stand still at the close of the evidence in support of the charges—your lordships allowed to her majesty whatever time she required to answer that evidence—unlimited funds were placed at her majesty's disposal to procure witnesses to answer that charge—and every facility which the government of this country could afford was rendered her upon that occasion. My lords, I say I trust that this case will not stand as a precedent in future, for such a mode of proceeding; because I can conceive nothing more dangerous—nothing more hazardous—than that, after a case has been proved, at least attempted to be proved in evidence, time should be afforded to answer that case—and, my lords, that time should be afforded to answer that case under these circumstances, when, according to my learned friends statement on the other side, witnesses were easily to be procured from that country in which the scene of these transactions is laid—corrupt witnesses—and therefore, my lords, that facility afforded the means—if the means could have been procured—of attempting by testimony which I will not call perjured testimony, because I am not entitled to do so in the present stage of the proceedings—but I say which did afford an opportunity, if perjury could be obtained by money and corruption, to obtain it upon this occasion, in answer to the case which had been proved in support of the bill.
My lords; I am sure her majesty has no reason to complain of a disadvantage in other respects. She has had to support her case unbounded zeal, the most sedulous industry, and—I think the epithet I may apply—the most extraordinary talents called to her aid, upon the present occasion. She has therefore presented her case to you, not under circumstances of disadvantage, but under circumstances of advantage which I believe never yet

1241
before were afforded to an accused. If, therefore, she has failed in her defence—if the case made out in support of the bill remains uncontradicted—if, on the contrary, it remains supported by the testimony which has been adduced—I say, her majesty can never complain that she has not presented her case fully, fairly, and satisfactorily before your lordships; and that she has not had that peculiar advantage, which I believe no accused ever before enjoyed, of having such extraordinary talents called to her aid as have been exerted upon the present occasion.
My lords; under these circumstances, what is the duty which I have now to perform? My lords, I have not the power—and if I had the power, it would be my duty not to exercise it upon the present occasion—to appeal to your passions, or to excite your feelings against this illustrious lady. My lords, that held was open for my learned friends on the other side: they have availed themselves of it, to the greatest extent—all that brilliant declamation—all that apt quotation and illustration borrowed from ancient and modern authors—could afford to them. My lords, this field has been open—of it they have availed themselves to the fullest extent. But upon me is imposed the severer task—but undoubtedly a task more congenial to my feelings, and I trust to the feelings of your lordships—to examine with care and attention the evidence and the facts of the case—upon which evidence, and upon which facts, I know that your lordships will decide, without regard to any of these topics which have been so unsparingly introduced in the course of the present discussion.
My lords; what is the case then, which I am to present to your lordships? The charges contained in the preamble to this bill have been so often repeated to you, that it would be a waste of time to refer to them; but, my lords, before I advance to the discussion of the facts of the case, let me in the outset avail myself—and when I say, avail myself, I do not mean by that to catch at an expression or a phrase which has been used by my learned friends—but to avail myself of that which they find themselves compelled to admit, that the case on the part of the Bill, if your lordships believe the witnesses, proved fully, clearly, and satisfactorily, all the charges contained in the preamble to that bill. Nay, more, my lords, I avail myself of another admission which my
1242
learned friends have made to me upon, the present occasion, not only in their speeches, but by their acts, that that case at the close of the evidence on the part of the bill, was substantiated; that it was a case which required the fullest answer on the part of her majesty; and three weeks have been employed in evidence, and six days, I believe, in addresses to your lordships, to prove that triumphant case which my learned friends conceive they have of her majesty's innocence and purity upon the present occasion. Then, my lords, when I advance to this discussion, I say never let it be forgotten by your lordships, that that admission has been extorted from my learned friends, and that therefore, when you come to apply the evidence which has been offered by them, you are to consider how far that evidence has contradicted or weakened the case which has been produced in support of the Bill; nay more, my lords, how far that evidence has not strengthened, supported, and confirmed it.
My lords; in examining this case, my learned friends have had recourse to a most artful—when I say an artful—a most judicious mode on their part of considering the evidence. They take care to call out insulated facts; and keeping from your lordships view those general leading features of the case, which never can be shut out in the consideration of this case, they then argue upon each case, as if it stood upon the mere circumstances attached to that case, without bringing to your view the general and leading circumstances of the case, which cannot be contradicted, which have not been contradicted, which must be admitted, and which, I say, your lordships never must exclude from your consideration in examining the evidence in the particular details through which it runs. My lords, therefore I say, before I advance to the consideration of the particular facts, let me recall to your consideration those leading circumstances which are admitted, which are uncontradicted, in the case. The first is, that Bergami was taken into her majesty's service as a menial servant, at Milan, in October 1814—that within a few short months that man, without any reasonable cause, without any pretence whatever, except, my lords, as proceeding from that licentious intercourse which I trust I shall be able to satisfy your lordships has existed between her majesty and this man—I say, my lords, that within a few

1243
short months that man, without any reasonable cause, is advanced in her service—that before that advancement, at the time when he still held the menial situation which he filled at Naples, his child, and many members of his family, are introduced into the service or into the house of her royal highness, without any ostensible cause for that introduction. You find further, that within a short period, and while he remains a courier, he is admitted to dine at her majesty's table—that shortly afterwards, he is placed in circumstances which might have, under other circumstances, entitled him to a seat at that table; and that soon afterwards he is loaded with honors and titles, procured undoubtedly through the medium of her majesty; because it would be trifling to suppose they were procured through his own means—and, under those circumstances, your lordships find this person in habits of the most confidential intercourse with her majesty, continuing with her in that character up to the period of her arrival on the opposite shore, and then, my lords, not dismissed, but retiring from her majesty upon that occasion to a seat which had been procured for him at Milan, without being dismissed from her service, but without her majesty venturing to produce him upon the shores of this country. My lords, these, I say, are facts admitted and uncontradicted; and which therefore you never, must shut out from your recollection in considering the particular circumstances of this case, as they are detailed in evidence before you; for when it is said, you are to examine this or that particular case, the case at Naples, for instance, or the case on board the polacre, you are to consider them distinctly by themselves, and as insulated and cut off from the other circumstances of the case—I say, my lords, undoubtedly, it suits my learned friends purpose so to consider it; but your lordships, who are to sit in judgment upon this case, are to consider those facts and those circumstances, with reference to those to which I have shortly alluded, and which I wish to bring before your lordships consideration in the outset of the discussion of this case. It will be my duty hereafter, more particularly to direct your lordships attention to the advancement of this person, Bergami, and the futile reasons attempted to be given for that advancement: but before I approach the facts of the case, those facts
1244
from which an adulterous intercourse is to be not only inferred and presumed, but I say, is proved upon this occasion, I say, in considering these facts, your lordships must never shut out from your recollection the relation which subsisted between these parties, the manner in which he had been advanced in her majesty's service, the manner in which his family and friends were brought about her, and the manner in which the honors, the titles, and the estates have been conferred upon him.
My lords; having made these introductory observations, let me at once approach the examination of the evidence in detail, and in the order of time in which the facts have been adduced before your lordships. My lords, Bergami having been hired as a courier at Milan under circumstances which, when I come to consider the evidence, I shall beg leave to examine, proceeds in that character to Naples, where her majesty arrived in the month of November 1814; and, my lords, at Naples begins the evidence by which the preamble of the bill is attempted to be supported. And, my lords, in considering this case, observe what course my learned friends have pursued. Not considering the case as it stands upon the evidence, but attempting to contrast that evidence with the Opening which I had the honor of making at your lordships, bar, and then endeavouring to infer that because, in some particulars, the evidence has not fully substantiated that opening, the case is not proved. They say, unless the case is proved as it was opened, your lordships cannot decide upon it: Whereas, your lordships duty upon this occasion is, to discard that opening from your recollection. That opening was made with a reference to those facts which it was expected would be proved; but your lordships decision is to be formed upon the facts, and upon the evidence before you, without any reference to statements or to observations which are not founded upon those facts and that evidence. Why, my lords, my learned friends have had too much experience in courts of justice not to know that in the opening of ordinary cases—not a case like this spread over a long portion of time, and comprehending within it such a variety of circumstances—no counsel was ever expected to be tied down minutely to the opening he had made; or that the jury were to consider the case in

1245
reference to that opening the judge when he comes to sum up the case—your lordships when you come to consider it—are to consider it without reference to that opening, but solely upon the facts as they are proved. And, my lords, if that was to be the criterion by which your lordships were to judge of the case, I shall by-and-by show you how my learned friends have failed in proving that case which they opened as a case to be proved, in contradiction to that proved in support of the bill. My lords, if that argument were to prevail, I will show you, not only that my learned friends have failed in proving the circumstances of their case as they have opened it, but that they have not ventured to prove many of the facts they opened to your lordship. The complaint against me is, not that I have not proved the substance of the charge, but that, in some minute circumstances, the evidence, though it proves it in substance, does not prove it minutely as opened—the charge against them is: that they have not erred merely to that extent, but that they have promised to your lordships evidence which, afterwards they either dared not, or could not produce.
My lords; the case at Naples, with which the evidence opens, has been examined solely with that view—it has been examined with reference to the statement which I made; and then my learned friends think they have succeeded if they can satisfy your lordships that that statement has not been proved to the full extent, although it may have been proved in substance, as I think I can satisfy your lordships it has even out of the mouths of their own witnesses. My lords, what is the case at Naples? That her majesty immediately upon her arrival altered that arrangement which had previously existed, of William Austin sleeping in her room—that upon the second night, Bergami, who had previously occupied a room with the other servants of her suite, was removed from that room to another, between which and her royal highness's bedroom, there was a private communication—that upon that night of the Opera, her majesty after her return, having excluded William Austin from her room, and having dismissed her servant, there is evidence given of facts which, my lords, lead directly to the conclusion of an adulterous intercourse having taken place between herself and Bergami on that night. My lords, how is this case
1246
met? It is said, contradictions shall be offered to every part of your statement. In the first place it is stated, "we shall contradict you with respect to the circumstance of William Austin." Now, my lords, let me call your lordships attention to the evidence as it stands with respect to that fact. Demont's evidence is, that previously to that night Austin had generally slept in her majesty's room. Mr. Craven is called, in order to satisfy you, that that removal of Austin had taken place long before the arrival at Naples, and that he himself, Mr. Craven, one of her majesty's equerries, but who, I think, might have added to his title, that of her majesty's monitor—that he in Germany thought he perceived that there was an indelicacy in that boy, then of the age of 12 or 13, continuing to sleep in her majesty's room; and, my lords, he gave her a prospective caution, that William Austin should not sleep in her room when they arrived in Italy. Did her majesty obey that caution? Was the apartment altered after that communication? No, my lords, no such thing. Upon one occasion, he thinks that Austin slept from her room in Germany; and then Carrington is called (upon whose testimony I shall by-and-by have many remarks to make) to satisfy your lordships, that that arrangement was altered; although he cannot venture to swear, that Austin slept more than once or twice out of her majesty's room. Then, my lords, they call Sicard, the person who had the arrangement of the bed-rooms. So little was any alteration in the arrangement known to him, that up to the period of their arrival at Naples, he never made any; and so little sensible was he, that her majesty intended it, that upon the arrival at Naples, he made no allotment of a room to William Austin, expecting that he would continue to sleep in her room; and therefore, acting upon that belief and that arrangement, he made no disposition of a room for that young lad at that period. But upon her arrival at Naples, Sicard tells you, that after their arrival at Naples, her majesty then, for the first time, stated to him, that she thought William Austin was grown too old to sleep any longer in her room: "the days I cannot recollect, but her royal highness spoke to me, that he was too old now—and he should have a room to himself." My lords, Demont swears, that the night preceding her arrival at Naples, a similar declaration had

1247
been made by her majesty to her; but I say, Sicard confirms Demont, Sicard contradicts Mr. Craven and William Carrington; because, if that arrangement had been altered—if it had been the intention of her majesty to alter it previously to her arrival at Naples, Sicard was the person to whom it should have been known, and Sicard was the person to act upon it. So far, therefore, from this part of the case being shaken by the evidence on the part of the defence, I say it has been strongly corroborated and confirmed by the testimony of Sicard, according with that given by Demont. Then, my lords, I say, that fact is established, even cut of the testimony produced by her majesty.
What is the next fact? That Bergami, the first night of his arrival at Naples, had slept in that part of the house allotted to the servants, and that upon the second night he was removed to that room to which I have already alluded. My lords, it is said, that that arrangement was made without the knowledge of her majesty, and solely upon, the suggestion of Sicard himself. Let me for a moment, my lords, call your attention to the manner in which that is stated by Sicard at page 594.* He says, that he had not any communication with her royal highness upon the subject, but he had a communication with Hieronimus upon that subject; and Hieronimus, who could have explained that circumstance, is not called by my learned friends, although still in the service of her royal highness, and the not calling him, creates a strong suspicion in my mind, that the account given by me in my statement is true; namely, that that arrangement was made with the knowledge, and at the suggestion probably of her royal highness herself. The question is proposed to Sicard—"Do you recollect any reasons you had"—now observe his reason and observe his conduct, if that was the sole reason for removing Bergami,—"The principal reason I had was, that there was a glass door which went into the garden, that was not safe, and therefore I thought it right that a servant, or some one, should sleep there, a male." Why, my lords, if the reason for placing a servant in that room was, to protect her royal highness from persons who might have come in from the garden into that cabinet, how is it that the com-
* See p. 405 of the present Volume.
1248
munication between her majesty's room and that cabinet had not been cut off, by locking up the door which stood between her royal highness's room, and that cabinet? But, my lords, that is not the case. The communication between her majesty's room and Bergami's remains free and uninterrupted; and although Bergami is placed there for the protection of her royal highness from the garden, there is nothing whatever interposed to protect her from the visits of Bergami or of any other servant who might have gone in through his room and the cabinet. But, my lords, an attempt was made by the witness Carrington. See how the case was attempted to be made out by him. He knew of no such reason; he knew of no such motive operating upon the minds of any persons in the family for the removal of Bergami: he never heard of any apprehensions being entertained for the safety of her royal highness, or any reason for the protection of her there. But he states, that the room Bergami had occupied, was too low for him to occupy; that he complained of that, and that was the sole cause of the removal. My lords, when attempts are made to explain that extraordinary fact, and when that witness who could have added to the explanation, and who had the communication probably with her royal highness, is not called, I think you will consider that the reasons are not satisfactory; and when your lordships consider those general circumstances which you can never shut out from your recollection, I think you can entertain little or no doubt, that the reason for placing Bergami in that room was for a more easy communication and intercourse between him and her royal highness.
But then, my lords, it is said, that another part of Demont's evidence is contradicted, with respect to the time when her royal highness returned from the Opera. My lords, there is no contradiction in that: all that Demont states upon that occasion is, that "it seemed to her, that her majesty returned early." Sir W. Gell and Mr. Craven are called, to prove that she did not return early, but remained at the theatre till the Opera was concluded, and was then conducted to her apartment by sir W. Gell. But I say there is no contradiction in this. The fact remains upon the testimony of Demont, whether she returned early or late, that she dismissed her, having gone first to the cabinet—which Dr. Lushington endeavours

1249
to explain, by another part of the evidence; not recollecting that Sicard says, that he is not certain whether there was such a water-closet; but if there was, it was not in that passage, but in the passage communicating with Dr. Holland's and Hieronimus's room, though Dr. Holland does not himself recollect it to have existed. Then, my lords, I say there is no contradiction as to the time of the return. The free communication between her majesty's and Bergami's rooms does not stand upon the testimony of Majoochi and Demont, but it is confirmed by Whitcomb and by Sicard, that there was, between her majesty's room and Bergami's, that free and uninterrupted communication, parallel with the general communication which existed with her room, and which also led to the rooms of Hieronimus and Dr. Holland.
My lords; it is said that another part of our statement was not proved by the evidence: that it was opened to you, that her majesty did not appear at so early an hour on the following morning as on other occasions, and that there was no evidence of this. My learned friend omitted to call your lordships attention to the facts sworn by Demont, at page 309,* where she states, that upon the following morning after she had dressed her royal highness, she went into the small cabinet next to Bergami's room, and remained there for an hour and a half. Sicard was called with a view to contradict her upon this, but he failed; he has no recollection upon this. He says, in page 598,† "It has happened, that her majesty was not up when persons called in the morning; he remembers it happened at Blackheath, but he cannot say whether it did at Naples or not." But my learned friends have assumed, that the evidence failed upon that part of the subject, overlooking altogether that testimony of Demont.
Another fact was to be contradicted—the state of the beds. My lords, Demont swore that the small travelling bed had upon the following morning the appearance as if it had not been occupied, and that the large bed exhibited those marks to which I need only recall your lordships attention without particularizing. What was the opening of my learned friend, Mr. Williams, upon this? that he would
* See Vol. 2, p. 1157.
† See p. 409, of the present Volume.
1250
prove to your lordships, by a servant who had been called into her majesty's room upon that night, that the wind having blown open her majesty's window, that servant went into her majesty's room for the purpose of shutting that window, and that her majesty was seen upon that occasion by that servant in her bed.* Where is the evidence of this, my lords? Where is the servant? I suppose the terror and alarm at the cross-examination of lieutenant Flinn has operated also upon the nerves of that unfortunate servant; and for that reason he is not produced before you. But when I am charged with not having proved the statement I have made, I call upon my learned friends to account why they have not called this servant to prove the state of the beds on that night? Could any thing have been more satisfactory or more decisive upon this part of the case? Could there be a more express contradiction than by that servant if they had dared to call him? And never forget this in the course of your examination of the evidence—when you find that her majesty has the means of contradicting the facts sworn to by the witness in the support of the bill—when she dares not use those means to contradict them if they exist—the inevitable conclusion is this, that the contradiction cannot be made; but that if the person were produced to make the contradiction, he would fail from his defect of memory or of nerve. My learned friends dare not call this witness, though they have opened that they should do so, to contradict this part of the case. Then, I say, with respect to this first night at Naples, that Demont, so far from being contradicted, stands confirmed—I say she is confirmed with respect to William Austin—she is confirmed with respect to the change of the room of Bergami—she is not contradicted as to the state of the beds—a contradiction is opened, and not proved; and therefore, in substance and effect, the whole of that charge is corroborated and confirmed by the whole of the evidence now before you.
My lords; mark another thing—how minutely my learned friends labour this part of the case. They say that if they are enabled to cut down this part of the case, the whole superstructure subsequently built must fall to the ground—that this is to be considered as the key-stone
* See p. 279 of the present Volume.

1251
of the case—that if that is removed, the whole falls; and therefore they have most ingeniously endeavoured to argue this as the case on which the charges of the bill are founded.—My lords, I deny that altogether. I say that, even if your lordships shall think, after the observations I have made, that it does fail, still it does not at all touch the remainder of the case; for whether the adulterous intercourse commenced upon that night, or took place upon a subsequent occasion, matters not at alb I think your lordships will find, from the remainder of the case, that there are ample grounds to believe that that adulterous intercourse did take place at Naples, and, if not at Naples, long before the appointment of Bergami to those honours which he subsequently attained. But, my lords, I say upon the evidence, Demont is not contradicted, but is confirmed; and still more strongly by the non production of that witness whom my learned friends stated they should call before you.
My lords; what is the second case proved by Demont? Her meeting Bergami in the corridor one night, in a state of undress, approaching towards her majesty's room. And here I was astonished at the conduct of my learned friend, Mr. Denman, upon this part of the case; for he really stated, that that evidence, even if believed to the fullest extent, so far from proving any adulterous intercourse between her majesty and Bergami, was rather calculated to excite a suspicion that that intercourse had taken place between Bergami and Demont herself. My lords, what are the circumstances which Demont states? She states, that being about to retire from her majesty's room to the door in the corridor which led to her apartment, and which was towards the door of Bergami's room, she saw Bergami advancing towards her majesty's room; that she instantly made her escape up to her own apartment; and that after she had withdrawn from her apartment, she heard the lock turned of that door so as to exclude the intrusion of any person into that corridor. My lords, I say my learned friends knew not how to meet this case; they felt that unless they could contradict it, it was conclusive evidence of her majesty's guilt—they endeavoured, therefore, by observations and by comment, to do away the effect of that evidence. But I say, if that case remains as it does, uncontradicted, when it might be contradicted if the
1252
contradiction were true, it is conclusive.
My lords; with respect to the masked ball, a great deal of observation has been made, and evidence called, to do away the I impression which the evidence of Demont has made as to that ball; but, my lords, have they succeeded, or have they not? I think, when your lordships come to examine critically and calmly the evidence that has been adduced upon this part of I the case, that here again there is not the slightest contradiction of Demont's testimony. My lords, her statement was this,—that after her majesty had appeared in the character of a Neapolitan peasant, she withdrew from the apartment in which the entertainment was going on, and retired to a dressing-room; that Bergami entered that dressing-room with her; that they remained there for nearly three quarters of an hour; that she came out in the dress of the Genius of History, and that she went down in that character to the room from which she had previously retired. That she did appear in that character is undoubted; and that she did appear in a dress which, whatever sir William Gell may think upon the subject, I think your lordships will believe was not one of the most delicate. She appeared in a dress which sir W. Gell, from his knowledge of antiquity, compares to the dress of the Minerva at Mr. Hope's, and the Curiatius at the British Museum. It is well known to your lordships, that those figures have the arms completely bare up to the shoulders, and a thin drapery thrown over the person. So thin was it, that though sir W. Gell only saw it like a flash of lightning, and through the door at which her royal highness appeared, his optics were so good, that he could see the under dress which her majesty had on; and not only were his optics so good, but he swears that that dress remained upon her majesty, when she was in the dress of a Turkish female and a Neapolitan peasant. Sir W. Gell made his observation, not only when the flash of lightning came across his eyes through this door, but he undertakes to swear to your lordships, that that under-dress remained upon her majesty when she dressed for some other character, though he does not attempt to say, that he was with her majesty when she changed her dress, and therefore he cannot, from that circumstance, undertake to say whether she continued that dress on her person or not! But what does sir W. Gell also state—and it is most im-

1253
portant—that considerable delay took place before her majesty appeared in that character—that great anxiety was raised to see the exhibition which her majesty proposed, the crowning a bust of Murat—that they continued anxiously expecting her arrival—that at last the door opened, and this took place almost instantaneously, her majesty appearing with those other persons to crown the bust of Murat. But you have this fact admitted, that there was great delay; and that was occasioned, as Demont says, in consequence of that change of dress and of Bergami assisting her upon that occasion. I call your lordships recollection to the evidence of Mr. Keppel Craven. He says, at p. 536,* that he hardly observed her dress, the scene Was so immediately closed. The third was the Genius of History as I was told. "I saw it for a short time, and I do not recollect that it was at all indecent; and at pages 552, 560, and 561,† your lordships will see the account given by sir W. Gell of that dress. Then, my lords, how is that case affected? I say, as far as contradiction has been attempted, it has failed; and I submit to your lordships, that that confirmation not only affirms the original account given by Demont, but that it is confirmed by the facts spoken to by Mr. Keppel Craven and sir W. Gell.
My lords; the other facts which took place at Naples, are those which took place at the Theatre San Carlos; and of Bergami being seen upon the terrace of the garden, walking with her majesty arm in arm. Now, my lords, with respect to the theatre San Carlos, my learned friends say this case has failed, because the opening speech carried it further than the evidence has substantiated. But did her majesty go upon that night, or did she not, to the Theatre San Carlos, in company with Bergami and Demont? My lords, the effect of the evidence is, that her majesty went; not that I blame her for enjoying the pleasure of a masquerade, or that I am to be supposed to be ignorant that persons who go to a masquerade must go in disguise. Neither my learned friend the solicitor-general, nor myself has advanced such a preposterous statement. But our statement is this; that her majesty chose upon that occasion to go to a masquerade, not in company with the
* See p. 333, of the present Volume.
† See pp. 347 and 361 of the present Volume.
1254
ladies of her suite, not in company with Mr. Craven, or sir William Gell, or. Dr. Holland, who it appears was there.
Mr. Denman.—How does that appear?
Mr. Attorney General.—I will show your lordships how that fact is proved by Dr. Holland. I thank my learned friend for interrupting me, if he thinks I misstate. I should despise myself, if I could wilfully misstate—I feel it my duty only to bring the facts before you, as I conceive they are proved. I say the case is not, that her majesty went to a masquerade, or went disguised, but that she went to that masquerade, accompanied by Demont and Bergami, instead of being accompanied by the gentlemen or ladies of her suite. My lords, Demont proves that case; she states the dress her majesty wore, and the way in which she went. I am told there is nothing in her majesty's going in a rainy night across the garden, and then in a hired carriage, instead of in her own carriage, and accompanied by her own suite—but what does Dr. Holland state? He states in p. 611, "Were you ever at a masquerade at the Theatre San Carlos when her royal highness was there? I was. With whom did she go there? I was not aware till the following morning that her royal highness had been there.
Mr. Denman.—How does it appear that that was the same night?
Mr. Attorney General.—"Did you remain there during the whole or nearly the whole of the performance? Only about an hour, as far as I can recollect; certainly a short time."—"Are you to be understood that you do not know with whom her royal highness went to the theatre that evening?" "I do not."* My learned friend says, how does it appear that it was that time?—Has it been proved that she went upon any other occasion? Could Dr. Holland have remained in doubt if any of her suite had accompanied her?—If she had gone on any other occasion in company with sir William Gell or Mr. Craven, why were not those questions put to them? Because it is clear, that that was the time referred to by Dr. Holland's evidence; that she went with Bergami, the courier, who had been in her service, at that time, only three or four months; that Bergami was selected, not Hieronimus or Sicard. Can your lordships doubt that this selec-
* See p. 414 of the present Volume.

1255
tion of Bergami, accompanied as it was afterwards by his exaltation, attributed to some act of service and fidelity never proved, is rightly attributed to an intercourse carried on by her majesty with him, from that time till she arrived at St. Omer's? The complaint is, not that her majesty went in disguise to a masquerade, but that the persons selected to accompany her, were the fille de chambre, Demont, and the courier Bergami. And I say, Dr. Holland shows, that she went without the knowledge of the rest of her family, for that he was not aware of it till the following morning. My lords, it was incompetent for me to ask what was the information given him on the following morning, as to who accompanied her royal highness to that masked ball. But I say that fact has been established by Dr. Holland—no other night is spoken to, and therefore her account of that transaction is confirmed as far as it can be, and not contradicted.
My lords; she states another fact, that she on one occasion saw the princess and Bergami walking arm in arm on the terrace at Naples. How is this attempted to be met? By evidence in the most extraordinary way I ever heard. Sir W. Gell and Mr. Craven are called with a view to contradict and explain this fact. Sir W. Gell states, that upon one occasion he saw the Queen walking upon the terrace and Bergami attending her. But, the most important evidence upon this occasion is that of Mr. Keppel Craven, who says, "I saw her royal highness walking in the garden, and Pergami was near; I knew there was a spy at that time at Naples. I had had information of it from England; that being the case, I thought it necessary to caution her with regard to any outward appearances that might be misconstrued."* And because he saw her royal highness in broad day walking upon the terrace at Naples, the servant Bergami following behind her, Mr. Craven is so sensitive, he is so alive with respect to any misconstruction, which can be made of her royal highness's conduct, that he thinks it fit to assume again the character of her monitor, and he communicates with her upon that subject, and advises her to be cautious with respect to walking in the situation in which he saw her walking at that time with Bergami. At the same time he states, that he saw
* See p. 336 of the present Volume.
1256
nothing improper in it; that it was upon a terrace visible to the neighbours from their houses—he who had seen the impropriety before of William Austin sleeping in her room, saw no impropriety, but only imprudence, in her thus walking. But, my lords, it was a fact, that she was walking with Bergami—had it been any of the other servants, I ask whether Mr. Craven would have hinted to her majesty, the impropriety of her so walking? Impropriety there was none—it was right she should have a servant to attend her; and therefore I think it is clear, that though he had seen nothing improper in her majesty's conduct, there had been some suspicion excited which led him to observe, that it was right that man should not be the person to accompany her—that it might be open to suspicion, if he was there at that time. Bergami was so distinguished from the other servants, that he had been remarked by lord Llandaff, and was noticed by lord Guildford, who dined with her at Genoa. How is it that lord Llandaff distinguished him from all the other servants? How is it that he so attracted their notice? How is it that Mr. Craven thinks that he should not be the person to attend her in the garden—if it had not been for some suspicions lurking in their minds, acquired not from their own knowledge—perhaps from the visit to the Theatre San Carlos having come to their knowledge. Mr. Craven must have acted upon some such suspicions, or he never would have dared to approach her royal highness, and have said "You had better not walk with Pergami in the garden; though I see nothing at all improper in it—though it is night, you should have a man-servant to attend you." That communication never would have been made to her majesty, but for a suspicion lurking in his mind; and being made, let me request your lordships to bear that recommendation in your minds, from one end of the case to the other; and then, her majesty having been cautioned by Mr. Craven, how can your lordships reconcile that caution so given to her majesty, with her subsequent conduct to that highly-favoured individual?
My lords; another fact is sworn to by Majoochi, as having taken place at Naples; and we have had a great deal of comment on the facts sworn to by him. My lords, the facts which he proves to your lordships are these—that Bergami

1257
having met with an accident from the kick of a horse, was confined to a room, between which, and the room of her majesty, there was that private, that uninterrupted communication—that Majoochi was appointed to attend upon Bergami, and was therefore ordered to sleep in a small cabinet adjoining Bergami's room, and which cabinet was between that and the room of her royal highness. He states, that upon two nights he observed her royal highness walking carefully through the cabinet to Bergami's room; that she entered it, and remaining there at one time about fifteen minutes, at another rather longer, returned through the cabinet back to her own room, and that this was at midnight. And, my lords, we are asked with an air of triumph whether this is possible to have happened, because there was another passage through which her majesty might have gone to Bergami's room, and that therefore it was improbable that she should hazard the going through that room. My lords, how stand the facts as to that public passage? It led to various rooms—to Dr. Holland's, Hieronimus's, William Austin's, and others; it was a passage frequented by the family; she ran the risk of meeting persons going to their bed-rooms, or passing through it for various purposes; and if there was a water-closet in that passage, of which my learned friend said so much, that might lead persons there; but Majoochi having been hired as a servant at the instance of Bergami, and directed to attend upon him, she goes through that room, believing at the time that Majoochi was asleep, and there she remains for that portion of time. What is there so impossible or improbable in this? There are two ways in which she can accomplish this—one, a public passage in which she is liable to the interruptions of all the servants; the other, in which she is liable only to the observation of Majoochi, if he was awake. It is said that Majoochi does not prove what passed between them, for that he heard only whispers. My lords, I do not care whether the evidence proves the adulterous intercourse to have taken place at that time, for it is evident that no woman of delicacy who had not had such illicit intercourse with a man, would go into his bed-room at such an hour, and be shut up with him for a quarter of an hour. As to the credit of Majoochi personally, I shall have to consider how far his evidence is contradicted; but I say he proves most
1258
clearly that an adulterous intercourse was carrying on between her royal highness and Bergami.
But it is said, there is a contradiction of this man by Dr. Holland in page 618. Majoochi swears that upon one occasion he saw the princess in Bergami's room at the time that Dr. Holland was attending Bergami in his illness. What does Dr. Holland depose to upon that subject? He is asked; "Do you recollect the princess coming into Pergami's bed-room, at the time you were dressing his foot?" "Certainly she did not?"—"Do you recollect the princess coming into Pergami's bedroom during any part of that illness? To my knowledge never."*—But, does he venture to swear that she did not? And whether at that time he was dressing Bergami's foot, or whether it was upon any other occasion, matters not. There is no direct contradiction of Majoochi upon this; for she might have been there upon another occasion when Majoochi might have been present and Dr. Holland present; and, though he swears cautiously, he does not swear that she was not there on any occasion during Bergami's illness. You have on the one side the positive testimony of Majoochi; you have only the equivocal testimony for Dr. Holland on the other. It was a fact which Majoochi could have no interest in stating or withholding; for if the other part of his testimony was true, it was perfectly immaterial whether her royal highness visited Bergami in the presence of Dr. Holland or not. If the rest of the case be true, and it is admitted to be true, there is nothing improbable, there is nothing inconsistent, in the account given by Majoochi; but it is very probable, that her royal highness, carried away by her passion for this man, should have visited him in the way described by Majoochi.
My lords; at Naples, by an extraordinary coincidence, undoubtedly several of her majesty's suite leave her service—sir W. Gell, Mr. Craven, and some of the female attendants who had accompanied her from this country—she proceeds from Naples to Civita Vecchia, and from thence to Genoa; and here, my lords, let me call your lordships attention to the evidence of lady Charlotte Lindsay with respect to what took place in the jouney from Rome to Civita Vecchia. My lords, it was said yesterday by Dr. Lushington,
* See p. 424 of the present Volume.

1259
that all the facts of familiarity have fallen beneath our feet; that those facts from whence I had properly inferred, if they had existed, that there was this attachment subsisting between Bergami and her royal highness, have completely failed; and that no act of improper familiarity can be proved to have taken place, as making any distinction between Bergami and any other of her majesty's servants. My lords, my learned friend forgot at that time the evidence given by lady Charlotte Lindsay of what took place upon that journey. But before I come to that fact, let me call your attention also to what she states at page 515, because your lordships will find, that at Naples, singular as it was, Bergami is undoubtedly selected as the person to wait upon her royal highness, not only in the house, but upon their walks. If she dines in her bed-room with lady Charlotte, Bergami is the person to wait upon her; if she walks out with lady Charlotte, Bergami is the person to attend her. This is singular. He had been a courier all the way from Milan to Naples. Her royal highness could have had but little opportunity of observing either his manners or deportment upon such occasions; but so it is, that shortly after her arrival at Naples, that this person is constantly selected as the favourite attendant upon her royal highness. But, my lords, in the journey from Rome to Civita Vecchia, your lordships will find this singular circumstance: at page 519, lady Charlotte Lindsay is asked, "Does your ladyship recollect Pergami coming up to the window of the carriage, and addressing her royal highness, saying à boire, madame." Mark the answer. Lady Charlotte cautiously avoids giving a direct answer to that; but she says, "I perfectly recollect his coming up to the carriage, but is was after he was called." Now we shall see the reason why she says it was after he was called. "We had provisions in the carriage, and her royal highness gave him some of the provisions out of the carriage, and something to drink."—"Has your ladyship a distinct recollection that it was after he was called? I think it certainly was after he was called." But why, she has no reason, "but because it was more natural that he should not come till he was called to have some provisions given to him."* My lords, is that a reason? Does she venture to deny that he
* See p. 319 of the present Volume.
1260
came without being called? Does she venture to deny the expression put to her as having been used by Bergami? No, my lords; there is that recollection about those facts which do not serve her ladyship to confirm them—that sort of recollection so frequently noticed by my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, in observing on the non mi ricordos of Majoochi. Throughout her ladyship's evidence you will find that tenderness of statement in touching on facts reflecting upon her royal highness. She will not venture, in any part of her evidence, positively to deny the facts to which she is interrogated; but she does admit that most important circumstance, that the bottle was handed from the carriage to this man—and rather thinks that he returned that bottle into the carriage. My lords, is this no familiarity on the part of a courier? Is it pretended that on any similar occasion, Carlo Forti or any other servant, ever took such a liberty? No, my lords; it is Bergami, and Bergami alone, who ventures upon it. And why, my lords, does he venture upon it? Because of the familiar intercourse which had subsisted between them at Naples. He rides up to the carriage and addresses her majesty in a familiar manner; that is not denied—the bottle was handed out without any glass, and he returned it again into the carriage. Can it be gravely contended that this is not familiarity on the part of a servant, which would not be endured but for the circumstances which had previously existed? I state confidently, that that fact alone, extorted from an unwilling witness, speaks more than all the acts of familiarity proved by witnesses called in support of the bill; for lady Charlotte Lindsay is the solitary female called upon this occasion, to support the character and dignity of her royal highness, during the twenty-four days she was with her royal highness. She is the main prop and stay on this part of the case. There is no other English lady—English lady did I say? she is the only lady called before your lordships—female testimony being much more important than that of all the roaster masons, or colonel Olivieri, or all the gentlemen that could be called—but lady Charlotte Lindsay is the solitary female witness called to prove what she witnessed for twenty-four days, though she is compelled to admit, that she did afterwards withdraw, at the instance of her brother, in consequence of reports he had heard of her royal highness. And

1261
yet this is the only female called throughout this case to support the character and maintain the dignity of her royal highness during her residence in Italy!
My lords; having gone from Civita Vecchia to Genoa, mark what takes place there. My learned friends find that, with all their powers of eloquence, great and splendid as they are, it is impossible to explain this away, and therefore they say, "Nothing more natural, nothing more commendable, than that a man received into the confidence of her royal highness, who had been exalted by her from his merits, and admitted to a place at her table, should endeavour to introduce into her family his relatives and friends." But, my lords, where does this happen? At Genoa, where he was still a courier. He was admitted to her majesty's society only by stealth, when there was no vacancy in the establishment. At Genoa, mark what takes place! The child of Bergami, Faustina the sister, the mother of Bergami, and Louis Bergami, are all at once upon a sudden introduced into her majesty's family. My lords, you recollect how Mr. Hownam a little drew back when I asked him the questions as to Victorine and Faustina—"they were not in the family—he met them accidentally in the garden"—at last, on re-examination by my learned friend Mr. Tindal, who thought he had been a little inconsistent in the account he gave, "Oh yes, they were in the family, but in what situation he knew not." What, my lords, the mother and sister of the courier introduced into the family for no reason whatever—the brother of the courier introduced and made a page, though there was no person dismissed to make room for him! Mark the period; for it is most important in the consideration of this case. It is not after he has distinguished himself by his merits; it is not after the attack on the house at Genoa, when it is pretended that he had defended her with so much bravery—though if any person merited by his bravery on that occasion, it was that much calumniated witness Theodore Majoochi—but, before those merits had been discovered on the part of this courier, four of his relatives are introduced into the family. But, mark what takes place at Genoa. At Genoa he waited at table, when lord Glenbervie and the other persons dined; but from that time that ceased. Mr. Hownam tells you, that after Genoa he no longer waited at table. Before I
1262
quit Genoa, however, let me recall your attention to the most important facts sworn to have taken place at Genoa, both by Demont and by Majoochi. My lords, it was observed by Demont at Genoa, that her majesty's bed was not slept in. She is asked, "Did you observe the bed of the princess, whether it had been slept in or not? Most often it had not been slept in." And, my lords, I think she and Majoochi both prove, that at Genoa, her royal highness and Bergami frequently breakfasted in a small cabinet at the end of the grand saloon. Now, my lords, let me call your attention to the proof of that fact, and to the power my friends had of contradicting it, if it was not true; for at Genoa our witnesses have exposed themselves to most material contradictions if they spoke untruly—Majoochi states, that Camera and Louis Bergami occasionally waited with Majoochi upon them when they breakfasted at Genoa and at other places. Demont is asked, "Do you know who waited at breakfast? Louis Pergaroi and Majoochi." I think your lordships will find, that upon other occasions, Majoochi states the breakfasting at Genoa and at Milan, and that upon these occasions also, that Louis Bergami occasionally waited with him.
Mr. Denman.—Quite the contrary, indeed.
Mr. Attorney General.—I am told he expressly said the contrary, therefore I will refer to it, at page 13. "Did you wait upon them at breakfast? Sometimes I did; sometimes I did not." "When you did not, who did wait? Either Louis Pergami or Camera."* Then, my lords, I say I have established out of their evidence, that the facts to which they have deposed with respect to the breakfasting, might have been contradicted by Louis Bergami and Camera, and those witnesses have challenged that contradiction; but although we are triumphantly told, they have contradicted every fact they could contradict, here are these facts sworn to which might have been contradicted; Louis Bergami and Camera being still in the service of her majesty, both or either of them might be called to contradict them. My lords, mark the distinction between evidence which may be contradicted by witnesses still in the power and about the person of her royal highness—mark the difference between the strength
* See Vol. 2, p. 813.

1263
of that evidence, and the strength of evidence of a similar fact told by two concurrent witnesses in support of it. My lords, two concurrent witnesses may have formed the Same story before they came before your lordships—they are witnesses to prove the fact—they may be in conspiracy together; and therefore the fact may not receive confirmation by the testimony of the second witness; but when the fact is sworn to as having taken place in the presence of a person still in the service of her majesty, and who might have been produced to contradict it, it is proved infinitely more strongly, and infinitely with more effect by the absence of that person. Her majesty has stated, through her counsel, that she wishes to call every witness who can clear away the slightest suspicion upon her character. When, therefore, my learned friends, in their discretion, acting upon that judgment which I have no doubt was well exercised, neither call Louis Bergami nor Camera to contradict that most important fact—and marking the familiar intercourse which existed between the parties; namely, that in seclusion from the rest of her suite, apart from the eye of her English attendants, she is breakfasting in private with this servant, this courier, who had not distinguished himself by any meritorious service, or any faithful exercise of his duty—that fact alone, uncontradicted, proves all that I stated, proves more than I stated, with respect to the habits of familiarity which existed at that time between her royal highness and Bergami.
My lords; I proceed from Genoa to Milan. Now, my lords, look at what takes place at Milan. Bergami is still a courier—though no longer waiting upon her royal highness at table—she is at Milan left at last without any English female of distinction attendant upon her. My lords, within two days after the departure of lady Charlotte Campbell, who makes her appearance as the dame d'honneur at Milan, to attend upon her royal highness? The countess Oldi! Who is she—by whom recommended—what were her qualifications? No evidence whatever is given upon that part of the case, but that she is the sister of Bergami. Is she known to be the sister of Bergami at the time she is introduced into her royal highness's service? This man whom she had already distinguished by marks of favour and condescension—who had so much ingratiated himself with her royal
1264
highness—was there any thing discreditable in introducing into her service the sister of this person? If there was not, why disguise it, why conceal it, why is it not known in the family that she is the sister of Bergami? Dr. Holland is with her. Could any thing be more natural than that she should have said to Dr. Holland on the arrival of madame Oldi, "You see I am left without any English lady; I am really without a companion; I have sought in vain for an Italian lady of distinction; I have applied to Mrs. Falconet," (I mean she might have done so,) "and the other acquaintance I have formed at Naples; they have declined the honour; I am driven to the necessity of applying to the countess Oldi; she is accomplished, she has moved in the higher classes of society, she is a fit companion for me; but I must tell you at the same time, she is the sister of Bergami the courier: it is rather an unpleasant circumstance that he should be in a menial situation, and she sitting at my table; but in the difficulty in which I have been placed, I have been under the necessity of applying to this lady; here she is, and allow me to introduce her to you." My lords, nothing of the kind passes. Dr. Holland is eight days in the house with her, and dines with her every day; she speaks not French, but Italian—what sort of Italian you have heard. Her royal highness at that time speaking French, and very little Italian—therefore this companion is introduced, with whom she can keep up no regular conversation, with whom there is a difficulty of interpreting their sentiments on men and manners—and this is the lady selected by her royal highness at that time as her dame d'honneur! My lords, I submit, with confidence, that this marks most strongly what at that time was taking place, between her and Bergami. Nay, even after Bergami is advanced to her table, when he is dining in company with lord Guildford at the Villa d'Este, she is introduced merely as the countess Oldi. Would it not have been natural to have said, "here is Bergami my chamberlain, and here is the countess Oldi his sister, who is my dame d'honneur." Why conceal the family connexion between the two? This speaks as strongly as any fact can do, that the intercourse at that time subsisting between herself and Bergami was of the nature to which I have so often alluded, that in consequence of that, the sister was

1265
chosen, that it was Bergami to whom she owed this situation, and that therefore the sister was not likely to mark with a scrutinizing eye the intercourse kept up between her brother and her royal highness. No, my lords, it would not do at that time to have any more English ladies to attend upon her—it was not fitting that any Italian lady of distinction and character should be introduced into her suite—it was then prudent to confine herself to one lady of honour, though she had previously had two, and that lady of honour, the sister of Bergami, introduced not as a sister, when another sister was in the family, in a subordinate situation. Mortifying it must be to any delicate female mind to dine with her royal highness, whilst her nearest relations, and even her mother, was excluded from the table, and introduced—for what purpose I ask your lordships? Was she in any situation in the family. No, my lords; but, because it was convenient that Bergami should surround her royal highness with all his friends and connexions, to exclude the observations of others upon his conduct and therefore it was; for that reason, and that reason only, that the countess Oldi was at that time introduced.
My lords; before I quit this part of the case, let me call your attention to a fact which has received neither comment nor observation, still less an answer—I allude to what took place on their visit to Venice, when Dr. Holland was of the party. I call your attention to the witness Bianche, whose testimony has not been attempted to be impeached. Although my learned friend, Mr. Denman, has commented with much minuteness upon this case, he has thought fit to refrain from observing upon this fact. Indeed, when I say this fact, almost all that took place between Genoa and the embarking on board the Polacre in Sicily, has been omitted by my learned friends in their observations. They say, "Oh, we pass over all these transactions; we think them immaterial and unnecessary to be observed upon." Undoubtedly, they were by them unnecessary to be observed upon, because they had no answer to give, either by observation, or by way of evidence. Bianche might have been contradicted by a host of witnesses, if what he states is not true. He is asked, in p. 214, "Do you recollect a jeweller being in that house one day? I do."—"Did the
1266
princess purchase anything from him? She bought a Venetian chain."—"Was that during dinner time, or before, or after dinner?" Now mark, my lords: "The jeweller came at the end of the dinner, when all the company were going to get up from dinner."* My lords, Dr. Holland has been called, lieut. Hownam has been called, but not a question is put by my learned friends. I cross-examined Dr. Holland and lieut. Hownam as to being at the dinner, but not a question was asked them as to this passing, or not. My lords, I know, and I allude to it with the contempt it deserves—I know that in the public newspapers, and particularly in one newspaper, to which I cannot help alluding, things have been published from day to day, which perhaps your lordships in your wisdom have thought fit to overlook, but which have disgraced the country, and disgraced those who attempt to vindicate her majesty's cause. No, my lords, they do not dare to confront these witnesses in your lordships' House; and then this infamous paper has had the audacity to publish circumstances, not for the purpose of influencing your lordships judgment, for you are above that, but of misleading that public which, with so much effect, has been misled. But, this person, Bianche, has exposed himself to contradiction in every part of this. It is true, that the subsequent fact of the use of the chain took place after the company had withdrawn; but the purchase of the chain must be known to every one of them if it took place. Lieut. Hownam and Dr. Holland were there, and they might have contradicted the fact, not only of the purchase of the chain, but of her royal highness and Bergami being left together in the room. I am entitled, therefore, to say, that Bianche's evidence is true; your lordships have heard that Vassali has recently brought from Venice some of the witnesses produced; but, upon this fact, they cannot bring one witness, and therefore this case stands confirmed. My lords, observe what the fact is—that after this chain was purchased, and after the company had gone from the room, "she took the chain from her own neck, and put it round the neck of the courier—the courier afterwards took it off from his own neck, and put it round her neck; and then he took her by the hand, and accompanied her into the room where
* See Vol. 2, p. 1088.

1267
they went to drink coffee." My lords, when we are told there is no evidence of familiarity between her royal highness and her courier, at the time he is courier, undoubtedly in the presence of the English persons in her suite, there is no impropriety observed. Surely, after the hint given to her by Mr. Keppel Craven, which must make her feel the importance of being guarded in her conduct before him, it is not remarkable that these persons saw nothing, and that my learned friends are enabled to call them to prove negatively, that they saw nothing from whence to draw an inference, that those facts, sworn to have taken place in their absence, did not take place. But, my lords, I say, this most important fact at Venice stands uncontradicted, confirmed by the now contradiction, and unobserved upon by my learned friends.
My lords; after the return from Venice, her royal highness took a tour to Mount St. Gothard; but before that tour, Mr. William Burrell, who had been for a short time in her house, had quitted—Dr. Holland had quitted; and there was no English person remaining in her suite but Mr. Hownam, the person whom she had patronized, whom she had promoted, and who was therefore under the greatest obligations to her. My lords, on that tour Demont stated to you, that at Bellinzona, Bergami, habited as a courier, who had travelled in the same carriage with Hieronimus as a courier, sat at table with her royal highness and Mr. Hownam. Is that fact true, or is it false? Mr. Hownam confirms it. Nay, my lords, that gentleman, though his recollection is so frail upon many parts of the case, states the particulars. He is asked, at p. 725, "Did not Pergami accompany her royal highness on that occasion as a courier? He was dressed in a courier's dress, but he then rode in a carriage."—"In the course, of that tour, did not Pergami dine with her at Bellinzona?" "He dined with her royal highness, I think it was at Bellinzona."—"Was not Pergami at the time dressed as a courier?" "He was."—"Did you dine with her royal highness upon that occasion?" "I did."—"Did he, fitter that time, occasionally dine with her in his courier's dress?" "Never afterwards in his courier's dress." And yet, my lords, the question but one after that, when he was asked whether he did not dine with her at Lugano, he "thinks he did."—"Was he not then courier, as he
1268
was upon former occasions, when he dined with her royal highness?" "It was upon the same journey."—"Do you remember any other place in the course of that journey in which they dined together?" "No, I do not." And then, when he is reminded of the Devil's Bridge, "At the Devil's Bridge did they dine together?" "That was on the same journey—I rather think they did. In a courier's dress upon all those three occasions."* My learned friends felt that this required some explanation, some observation in argument. It was stated, that this was quite an accidental circumstance; it might be that there was no other accommodation for the servants, and that therefore, in this tour, her royal highness was only conducting herself with that affability which marked her conduct to her other servants, when she permitted Bergami to dine with her at Bellinzona. But unluckily, my lords, for the argument, there was that old tried and faithful servant Hieronimus there—there was the fille de chambre Demont; but neither of those was admitted to her royal highness's table. Bergami, and Bergami alone of all the servants, not only at that time, but, according to Sicard's testimony, who had ever been in her royal highness's service, Bergami alone is admitted to that honour—and admitted to that honour at the time when he is a menial servant, and wearing the dress of that menial servant.
My lords; I thought I heard a question proposed upon that part of the case, to give a colour to the manner in which Bergami dined with her royal highness, "whether his dress was that of a livery servant, or like the more splendid dress of a hussar?" Good God, my lords, I can it matter whether it was a more splendid dress of gold and green, turned up in imitation of a hussar's dress, or whether it was the dress of a person ordinarily in that situation? Does the colour of the dress excuse her royal highness? No, my lords; the fact which makes against her royal highness is this, that at that time he was her menial servant, that on other occasions he was living with her menial servants, and that he, and he alone, was admitted to her table—it only shows, that when these facts come to be dealt with by persons of understanding and acuteness, how difficult they find it to frame an apology for these circum-
* See p. 513 of the preset Volume.

1269
stances, and that therefore they have recourse to the dress which Bergami wore upon that occasion, to excuse her for admitting him to her table. Hieronimus, who had been her servant for years, is still her servant—he had been faithful to her—he was at that time in exactly the same situation, nay, higher than Bergami, and yet he is not admitted upon that occasion. And while I am upon that part of the case, I would remark, that either Mr. Denman or Dr. Lushington, said, that at Genoa, Bergami, having been a courier and valet de chambre at Naples, was advanced in consequence of the absence of Sicard; that he became her maitre d'hdtel, and that therefore it became a matter of course that he should hire the servants. My learned friends, driven as they are to all sorts of excuses, forget the evidence; for if they had turned to their own witness, Mr. Hownam, at p. 72.5, they would have found, that he stated, that "though Hieronimus travelled occasionally as a courier, he was the maitre d'hôtel as he always imagined."* Why, my lords, he was her long-tried servant; nothing so natural as that he should become at the departure of Sicard, the maitre d'hôtel; and therefore the supposition, that it was natural to devolve upon Bergami the situation of maitre d'hôtel, and that therefore he had the means, without the particular knowledge of the princess, of introducing all those members of his family, falls to the ground—but Hieronimus is not admitted to her royal highness's table at Bellinzona, and Bergami is.
I will not detain your lordships at present upon what took place at the Villa d'Este, after the departure of Mr. Burrell; though it is not an unimportant fact, that the recollection of lieut. Hownam does not completely serve him—he thinks that at one time these pastimes took place in the evening between her majesty and her servants, which was not till after the departure of Mr. Burrell. In a subsequent answer, he rather thinks that at the Villa Villani Mr. Burrell was present; I can hardly think so. I can hardly believe it of a person of Mr. Burrell's rank and station in society: he might, for once, perhaps have been under the necessity of joining in these amusements, but I can hardly think be could join a second time in the amuse-
* See p. 513, of the present Volume.
1270
ments stated to have taken place at the Villa d'Este, amusements attributed to that remarkable condescension and kindness which her royal highness displayed towards all her domestics—but I think your lordships will believe, that those amusements did not take place during lady Charlotte Lindsay's residence with her royal highness; for she deposes to none. They took place at the Villa d'Este; and when her royal highness is left by all her English attendants but lieut. Hownam, then she amuses herself with the Bergamis and the connexions of this family. But, my lords, I say this marks the general passion of her royal highness, how unconquerable it was, and how it produces in her that conduct which I think did not become her high situation, notwithstanding that "affability and condescension" which she displayed towards her servants; but, I say, it marks still more strongly that which is charged against her upon the present occasion, that familiarity with her favourite servant Bergami, and the intercourse daily going on between them.
But, my lords, before I quit Italy, let me call your attention to the evidence of my lord Guildford—evidence, my lords, most important, in my view of it, in support of the bill. I know that after lord Guildford was examined—after Mr. Craven, sir W. Gell, Mr. Mills, Dr. Holland, and lady Charlotte Lindsay were examined—it was supposed that when they, being English witnesses, deposed to such a case in favour of her majesty, it set at nought all the facts which had been proved against her. It met my ears, after I left your lordships' House, that this evidence, if it went on in that way, would immediately destroy the bill, and destroy all the evidence which had been given in support of it, because they were English witnesses, and English persons of credit, and because—what? because they had proved that they saw nothing with their own eyes improper in her majesty's conduct! For, my lords, such is the account which they give in support of her majesty's defence. But, my lords, they do let out some facts, which not only confirm, but which, I say, alone would prove the case in support of the bill. What does lord Guildford prove? That a few months before (I think at Leghorn in the month of March) Bergami had been waiting behind her majesty's chair at the time be dined with her—in the month

1271
of November following, within the space of four or five months, my lord Guildford visits her at the Villa d'Este, and, I should think a little to his lordship's surprise, in his approach to that villa, he sees in a boat alone her royal highness and that person Bergami, who, a few months before, had stood behind his chair waiting at table. It is therefore true, my lords, that her royal highness was in the habit of going in this canoe with Bergami, which was proved by our witnesses, but which was so much scouted by the other side, as if they had been suborned to prove perjury. Why, my lords, the fact is proved by one of your lordships House, by a witness called to prove the defence. Lord Guildford proves, that on his approach to the Villa d'Este, he found her royal highness and Bergami alone in a canoe; and, I think still more co his surprise, when he sat down at the table, on the one side of her royal highness was himself, and on the other, the person who waited behind his chair when last he was there. My lords, did her royal highness condescend to give any explanation of this? The; countess Oldi also was present; but she was not introduced as the sister of Bergami. How can we account for this? Did not her royal highness tell him there had been this extraordinary affair at Genoa, in which she owed her protection and her life to the services of Bergami? that there had been this baron Ompteda, I of whom we have heard so much in discussion, and nothing in proof—that there had been this conspiracy among all her enemies—and that to prevent their efforts, she had advanced this man (a circumstance which must appear surprising to his lordship) from the menial situation of courier, to sit at her table? But no, my lords, the dinner passed in silence; they dined together the following day at Milan in silence upon this subject—the countess Oldi was not introduced as the sister—no reason was given to lord Guildford for his advancement. Can you doubt, my lords, when those reports and rumours of which we Lave heard, actuated his lordship's mind to advise his sister to quit the princess's service, and she did so in deference to that nobleman—I wish to make no harsh comments upon the evidence he has given, or his want of recollection to certain facts, I leave them to your lordships,—but can any man doubt that what lord Guildford saw upon that occasion, I mean the fact of the advancement of Bergami
1272
without a cause assigned, the discovery afterwards that the countess Oldi was his sister, coupled with those reports which it is said circulated abroad—operated upon his mind to induce his lordship to do that which he was right in doing; namely, to advise his sister not to rejoin her royal highness, for that it would not be creditable to her to do so, and that she acted well upon that advice?
My lords; I have heard it said, that private confidence has been abused, and that questions were put to lady Charlotte Lindsay which ought not; but, my lords, in the investigation of truth, and when witnesses are produced as the main prop and stay of her majesty's defence, to prove her conduct and her character, if that person has, at other times and on other occasions, made representations inconsistent with that evidence, I say the ends I of justice would be defeated if those declarations and those expressions, and that conduct were not dragged to light, in order to show what true weight is to be given to the testimony thus adduced. My lords, if private confidence could have been violated in the manner in which my learned friends describe (I only allude to it, I have no right to comment upon it. perhaps), private confidence must have been violated to a much greater extent on the other side; but if those facts were made known, as they were to me, unsolicited, unsought for on my part, I ask your lordships whether, in discharge of the duty you have cast upon me, I should have fulfilled that duty with honour to myself, if I had withheld, out of delicacy to lady Charlotte Lindsay, or any witness, however high in rank, those facts which I thought material to the truth? Would it have been correct on my part, when a witness was called to speak to the character and conduct of the Queen for twenty-four days, but who, from her rank and station and acquirements, was supposed to be a witness to carry great weight with the public by her testimony—would it have been just to your lordships, and still more to myself, if facts had come to my knowledge showing that when her ladyship stated she had not seen incidents with her own eyes, there was that extraordinary incident of. Bergami coming to drink at the side of the carriage, it was my duty to see whether she had not acted subsequently under other impressions, and therefore whether she was a witness to be relied upon, as to facts to which she spoke, in contradiction, to those proved on the part of the bill.

1273
My lords; the recollection of lady Charlotte Lindsay fails her as to her royal highness and Bergami walking arm in arm in the garden, La Favorita, at Naples. She does not deny the fact, but her recollection does not serve her. We have heard powerful comments upon that sort of answer given by an Italian witness—how powerful would they have been by my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, if they had been applied to English witnesses betraying the same want of memory! To Italians he attributes it to a disregard of truth, and a wish to conceal that which may make against the case to which they come to depose. An Italian is to be made the subject of quotations from Cicero, to embellish and adorn that otherwise extraordinary speech. I say, with what eloquence would my learned friend have dealt with English witnesses giving this answer! And yet, if your lordships will examine the testimony given by the English witnesses on the part of her majesty, I would venture to produce to you as many non mi ricordos as ever existed in the testimony of Theodore Majoochi.—My lords, we now come to her majesty's departure from Italy. She embarked on board the Leviathan, captain Briggs.
Earl of Lauderdale.—Perhaps this will be as convenient a time as any, if the learned counsel wishes for a short interval.
Mr. Attorney General.—If your lord ships please.
Mr. Denman.—Before your lordships separate, will you allow Mr. Brougham to be sent for? He has an application to make to your lordships, which he thinks it essential to make at this moment.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, I should think I did not discharge my duty, if I delayed one moment longer than the necessity of the case required, stating to your lordships, that while my learned friend, the attorney-general, has been engaged in his able argument, a most important communication has been made to me. My lords, I have no right, certainly, to produce evidence, but I have letters, original letters, in the hand-writing of the baron Ompteda, signed by him, "Ompteda, Ministre d'Hanover,"—proving him to have been, at the date of those letters, in correspondence with the household of her majesty, attempting to seduce them, looking out for individuals to seduce, and among others, Mariette Bron;—and that I may answer to the question, Why do you not call Mariette Bron? My lords,
1274
I have them here, I am ready to prove the hand-writing. I have received them within the last hour.
Mr. Attorney General.—My lords; in the first place, they are not evidence, and, in the next place, there never was an application attempted to be made at such a period of the case.
The Earl of Liverpool.—My lords, I was as much taken by surprise as any of your lordships; at all events, this certainly is not the period to produce them.
Mr. Brougham.—My lords, I thought it my duty, immediately on receiving them, to communicate them to your lordships, lest it should be attributed to me that I kept them back—it is important, as showing that I was right in my suspicions as to Mariette Bron.

The House adjourned during pleasure.—When the House was resumed, the Attorney General proceeded as follows:—
Mr. Attorney General.—My lords; it is not my intention to be diverted from the course of observations I was pursuing, when last I had the pleasure of addressing your lordships, by one of the most extraordinary applications that I believe was ever before heard in a court of justice, and in the middle of a reply. I shall have occasion to observe upon that, in another part of the observations which I have to make to your lordships; but I shall now pursue the evidence where I was interrupted by the indulgence which your lordships have been kind enough to grant me.
My lords; I was coming to the period at which her royal highness embarked on board the Leviathan at Genoa—and, my lords, in coming to that part of the case, I cannot but remind your lordships of the evidence given by Demont and Majoochi of the disposition of the rooms at Genoa, at Milan, at the various places they visited after their first arrival at Genoa. My lords, I only recall your lordships' recollection to that part of the case to state this—that that disposition of the rooms is not contradicted by any evidence on the part of the defence. In one instance only a contradiction was attempted with respect to a stair-case. At the Villa d'Este, where Majoochi stated that there was a secret stair-case near her royal highness's room, not generally used by the family, and in which a contradiction is attempted by lieut. Hownam, who

1275
states, that it led to the apartments of himself and others of the family; but which he himself believes had only been used by himself.
My lords; I call your lordships' attention to that part of the case at this period of it, because you will find the same system pursued by her royal highness when she embarked on board the Leviathan. Captain Briggs had made a certain arrangement and disposition of the cabins, placing her royal highness and the countess Oldi in two cabins inside the dining-room, placing her female servants in the place to be sure which would naturally occur to any one to place them in, namely, a room immediately adjoining her royal highness's, and having an internal communition with that room or cabin. My lords, her royal highness disapproved of this arrangement. She preferred that which had been her universal practice, of having Bergami, her equerry, placed in the cabin immediately adjoining her own, and in that cabin that captain Briggs had appropriated to the female servants. My lords, in p. 160,* captain Briggs states the appropriation which he had made of the cabin for the accommodation of her royal highness and her servants, and he states subsequently, that that disposition was altered by command of her royal highness; and your lordships will recollect, in his last examination, he stated it was an alteration in which Mr. Hownam had concurred,† by the approbation of her royal highness—a fact, however, which Hownam's memory had not retained, as well as a part of the conversation with captain Briggs, which, in Mr. Hownam's reexamination he had quite forgot had taken place, although that conversation occurred only a month Or six weeks ago. My lords, why do I remark upon this alteration of the cabins? Because, I say, it is part of that system and that habit that runs through the whole of the evidence in this case. What occasion was there for Bergami to be the person placed immediately near her royal highness on board the Leviathan? Would it not have been equally safe for her to have had her female servants in a room immediately adjoining to hers, and Bergami at some distance? Was there any apprehension entertained by her of any thing improper occurring on board the Leviathan, that
* See Vol. 2, p. 951.
† See p. 1023 of the present Volume.
1276
should have induced her to this alteration? Nothing. But, my lords, the favourite Bergami, the equerry, is selected upon that occasion to occupy the room immediately adjoining her royal highness's; and although the internal communication in consequence of that arrangement was shut up, you will find, that the door of his cabin opened immediately contiguous to that of her royal highness; so that it afforded that facility which, upon all occasions anterior, had been afforded, of an easy access and communication between the sleeping apartment of her royal highness and that of Bergami. I know-very well, that upon the cross-examination and the examination by your lordships, a strict inquiry was made of captain Briggs, how far Bergami might find his way into the princess's room without being observed. My lords, I wish to make no comments on that evidence; but I think you will perceive that it was most easy for him to have accomplished that purpose if he had liked it, without any observation. Captain Briggs slept in the dining-room, but on the opposite side, in a part divided off at night from the other part. He states, that though he might be interrupted at night, by persons coming to state what was passing on deck, yet that a person so communicating with him could have approached his room without interrupting any person who might have wished to have gone to her royal highness's room from the cabin of Bergami. My lords, that arrangement was made by her royal highness; and it is in proof to you by captain Briggs, that that occurred aboard his ship which has been spoken to by so many other witnesses; namely, that her royal highness took the arm of Bergami when walking on the quarter-deck.
On board this ship her royal highness visited Elba, and afterwards proceeded to Sicily, and my lords, it will be material for your lordships to attend to what occurred in Sicily after her arrival there. At Messina facts are deposed to, both by Demont and Majoochi.* Demont of the indecent familiarities which took place between her royal highness and Bergami. My lords, it was supposed, that there were some variances between their testimony respecting her royal highness and Bergami kissing at Messina; but there is no evidence that they were speaking to the same period, and they state the expres-
* See Vol. 2. pp. 1132 and 817.

1277
sions of her royal highness. She addresses him as, "Moncœur, mon ami;" words which no woman would have used to a servant unless there had been that familiarity between them which is imputed to her royal highness.
My lords; I will next call your lordships attention to a most important fact I in this case—I mean what took place at Catania; my lords, a fact is spoken to by Demont, which if true, proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that an adulterous intercourse took place at Catania. She states, that in consequence of some illness which Bergami suffered at Catania, a change of his sleeping apartment took place, and that he occupied a room that had been previously occupied by the countess Oldi—that between that room and the room occupied by her royal highness, there was another sleeping apartment occupied by Demont and her sister, and that the communication between the princess's room and the countess Oldi's room, was through that room so occupied by Demont and her sister. In consequence of that change, the countess of Oldi removed from that room which she had occupied with the little Victorine, and in which Bergami afterwards slept. Demont states, that she heard the door of her royal highness's room open at night; she also states, that upon one morning, having remained in her room rather later than usual, she saw the room door in which Bergami slept open, and her royal highness come out of that room in the dress she usually wore when she went to bed and with the pillows on which she usually reposed un-her arm.
My lords; we are told in this case, that Demont is a witness unworthy, of credit. Various observations were made by my learned friends upon the testimony of that person, and we have had most eloquent dissertations on the credit of discarded servants—still more, on the testimony of Demont after those documents were produced, one written to her royal highness, and another to her sister, And I did suppose, from the line of argument they took, that they were so satisfied in their own minds (at least they chose to affect to be so satisfied), that the testimony of Demont was not to be relied on, that I was astonished when I found at the close of their case, that they felt, notwithstanding all their observations, and all that magnificent dis-
1278
play of eloquence bestowed on this chambermaid by my learned friends—that they had so far failed in the impression they intended—that the ground they had taken was so weak, that their last witness, called over at the last moment, arriving in this country only the night before she is produced—a milliner from Morje—is produced to establish a contradiction to Demont upon a collateral fact, upon which we have heard so much, with respect to the testimony of lieut. Flinn, upon which I shall observe when I come to discuss that gentleman's testimony. So weak did they find their ground of attack—knowing that Demont had not been shaken—that every step they took confirmed and strengthened her narrative—as a last resource, at the last moment when the case was about to be closed, they call this milliner from Morje to depose to a conversation between her and Demont, in April 1818, in order to destroy her testimony by that contradiction! Why, my lords, if I wanted any other demonstration that my learned friends felt that her testimony was not shaken by those letters, this is a strong proof that they felt it.
What are the circumstances attending those letters? It is with pain, that, in an accusation against the Queen of this country, we should have it come out in evidence that a paltry intrigue had taken place with respect to that female—that when we talk of violation of private confidence, not only was private confidence violated, but Demont's letters to her sister were intercepted—that letters to her sister are extorted from that sister to destroy her testimony. And what does it amount to? I say the first letter of Demont written from Rimini, contains an expression in it which satisfies my mind that she felt the ground of intimacy between the Queen and Bergami; that she knew they were living together as man and wife, and at the head jointly of the establishment at Pesaro. For I call your lordships attention to a remarkable passage at the commencement of the letter from Rimini, which marks strongly what Demont felt with respect to the connexion and familiarity of intercourse which existed between the baron and her royal highness. "I cannot sufficiently thank her royal highness and the baron for their kindness in sending Ferdinand to accompany me; he has paid me all the attention and taken all the care of me imaginable. I

1279
know not how to acknowledge so Many benefits,"* and so forth. Here is the baron and the Queen united together in the same sentence, as both concurring in that act of kindness which they had conferred upon Demont; and I say, that that accidental expression in the letter coupling the baron with her royal highness as the persons who had conjointly conferred those favours, speaks to my mind demonstrably what had passed in the mind of Demont.
But then, my lords, you are told, that the other letter to her sister, written under circumstances which she has described marks the hypocrisy of this woman, and therefore her testimony is unworthy of credit. My lords, I say that when you consider all the circumstances under which she was placed—when you recollect the intrigue of intercepting her letters before she left her royal highness's service—when you remember her sister was still in the service, and that she knew that her sister was watched by that person, and that her letters were intercepted—I say at that time it was extremely natural for Demont to take care to express in these letters nothing which should excite the suspicion or jealousy of her royal highness—I say that is the clue to the whole of that letter; and in part of her evidence, she states, at page 351, "I have often had questions put to me in private conversation, and I have always avoided saying what took place in the house; this is the reason why I wrote that letter to my sister."† I say, my lords, that is a clue to the conversation, if it did pass between her and Madame Martigner in 1818—she was questioned—she carefully avoided entering into details of what had taken place in the house. Knowing her sister was in the family, and how dangerous it was for her to say any thing discreditable to her royal highness, she took care to avoid stating what had passed; and her letter conveys nothing, whatever, contradictory to the evidence here detailed. She is complimenting her royal highness's various virtues; but it is because she knows the letters will be seen—it is because she knows, that her sister might be discharged from the situation, who had not the means of subsistence which she herself had. But, recollect the cross-examination of Demont—how she is tortured as to whether
* See Vol. 2, p. 1234.
† See Vol. 2, p. 1203.
1280
she went by the name of the countess Colombier—and not a witness is called td contradict those answers! For what purpose were the questions put? I ask your lordships whether it was not intended as a medium by which they should contradict Demont by witnesses they should afterwards produce? My lords, they have failed to produce any such witnesses—the sole witness is Madame Martigner; and it is as to a conversation to which Demont was not asked when she was first examined; but there is not any person to say she went by the name of the countess of Colombier in Frith-street. Her evidence, therefore, stands confirmed by the other testimony given in the case; but confirmed still more strongly by the absence of those witnesses who might have been called to contradict her. Do not let me hear of Mariette being the person to contradict her as to what passed at Catania. "No," says my learned friend, "she does not swear Mariette was present, and therefore to produce Mariette would be no contradiction at all." But there was another witness to prove the fact most satisfactorily. I mean the countess Oldi, from whose room Demont says the princess went—from whose room she absented herself in the night, Victorine crying in consequence of the absence of her foster mother, the princess. She is not produced—because she must have confirmed the fact, and that would at once have established the whole case attempted to be made out against the Queen. I trust I have satisfied your lordships as to the testimony of Demont—watch it with suspicion, examine it with care, see how it accords with the other parts of the testimony, see where it is confirmed, and where attempted to be broken in upon—but do not let us run away with a notion of those letters of hers destroying her credit. My learned friends do not think it, as they have tried to destroy it by other means, and have failed to do it; and I say, that by that failure they have established Demont's evidence.
My lords; at Catania, therefore, I submit to your lordships, that the case is proved by the testimony of Demont, uncontradicted by those two witnesses, one of whom might have positively contradicted the fact, if she had been present, and if she were not, she could not have contradicted it; but the most Demont says is, that she does not recollect whe-

1281
ther her sister was there, but she rather thinks she was, than that she was not—Page 282 is that part of Demont's evidence which relates to that part of the case.* The countess Oldi was brought over by count Vassali; she is in this country, and yet neither of them is produced to contradict a fact so important, so material in the case.
My lords; at Catania honours were bestowed on Bergami—he is created a knight of Malta, and either there, or at Augusta, he is created the baron della Franchina. Some observation was made by my learned friends, that those honours were not proved to have been obtained by her royal highness—"they are," said he, "to be purchased for money, and you have no evidence that the money proceeded from her royal highness." In what situation was Bergami? He had been a courier at forty or fifty Louis a year—What means had he to procure those honours? I say it would be trifling with your lordships to argue upon such miserable points as those attempted to be made out on the part of the defence—I say those honours were procured for him by her royal highness; and though my learned friends say, these facts bear nothing against her royal highness, I say they prove every thing—they show that this man growing in her favour was the only person in her suite honoured in this way—he is the only person, an equerry, for whom the knighthood of Malta and the barony della Franchina are procured.
My lords; at Augusta your lordships will recollect the facts sworn to by Demont, at page 284; and 286,† with respect to the portraits there painted for her royal highness—one for Bergami of herself in the character of a penitent Magdalen, the other Bergami as a Turk; and those pictures were seen in the possession of Bergami. Why, my lords, how do you account for these things? Portraits of her royal highness bestowed on a servant! How do you account for it? She is in daily intercourse with him; these facts take place before the eyes of her servants; a portrait is presented to him by her royal highness—these things do not take place except between lovers. They are striking facts—but they are facts which my learned friends have most adroitly kept out of your view—they say,
* See Vol. 2, p. 1137.
† See Vol. 2, p. 1138.
1282
"We will show you she slept under a tent on board the polacre, where Bergami also; slept, unspotted and untainted—that there was no familiarity unbecoming her station"—Dining with a courier, in his courier's dress is passed over, and then they say, "We will show her passing her time on board the polacre a spotless and unstained character, and therefore you must consider all that occurred before as out of the case, and you must consider all pure up to that time."—You will consider her habitual situation, her manner of living, the personal distinctions bestowed on this man, and bearing this in your recollection, then indeed my learned friends would have been bold to advance to the case of the polacre, to which they said they advanced with such delight, but which, by an accidental omission, Mr. Brougham omitted to mention in his speech. Mr. Williams says, that Mr. Brougham made that accidental omission in his able and eloquent speech, although he commented on the evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo. But that is supplied by my learned friend, Mr. Williams. He ventures boldly on the case; he says he advances to it with the greatest satisfaction, and that it is a case which he wishes, of all others, to grapple with. He is followed by Mr. Denman, and Dr. Lushington, in the same strain; and at one period of the case, when these facts of the polacre were coming out on my learned friends a little unexpectedly, Mr. Brougham says, "I admit all that"—"That is part of our case," he says—But we shall see how far it is part of their case, or how far it was part of the case in support of the bill.
But, my lords, before I come to the scenes on board the polacre, let me observe upon what took place on her royal highness going on board the Clorinde, captain Pechell. My lords, she had been on board that ship before, on her voyage from Civita Vecchia to Genoa, and at that time Bergami had waited behind her chair, as a menial servant. On the second embarkation on board that ship at Messina, Bergami had been advanced in the manner we have described. Captain Pechell, with a feeling which reflects the greatest credit on that manly officer, says, "I cannot submit to the degradation of admitting to my table, a man who had previously lived in a menial capacity, and had actually waited behind my chair"—because it is clear this was

1283
passing in his mind. "I have heard, and seen nothing which can justify such an advancement. I can infer nothing but what is disgraceful, and I will not degrade the character of a British captain, by sitting at table with him." I have heard in a tone of exultation, from my learned friends, that captain Pechell, and captain Briggs, were their witnesses. How far captain Briggs is their witness, after his contradiction of Mr. Hownam, I do not know. They are our witnesses, they say, and therefore we marshal them in the front to support the defence. Do they? Can any man observe the conduct of captain Pechell and her royal highness on that occasion, and draw any other than one conclusion? Captain Pechell communicates to her, through captain Briggs, his objection to Bergami—that that is the only objection he has to providing at table for her, and her suite. What would have been the conduct of her royal highness, if the advancement of Bergami was innocent—if the exaltation of this man had been owing to some services he had performed for her? In the mind of any honourable female, she would have said, "Captain Pechell, I have advanced him to that situation, and having done so, you will not degrade yourself, by participating at the meals at which he sits. I have found him faithful among the many, who have betrayed me." Such would have been her answer; and she would have said, "having given you this answer, recollect you are treating the princess of Wales with indignity—you are degrading her, and I will represent to your superior officer your conduct." But, what is her royal highness's conduct? She pauses—she hesitates—she feels the indignity to her favourite Bergami; and, therefore, after two or three days she does that which marks the consciousness of guilt—she submits, and abstains from the table of captain Pechell. Not a single observation was made on this by my learned friends—they glide over it as they do over all the facts which make against them. But, I say, that that fact conveys a conviction of that, which subsisted at that time, between her royal highness and Bergami.
My lords; after that, at Augusta she embarks on board the polacre; and your lordships will recollect the disposition of the rooms which WAS made upon her embarkation, they are spoken to by Paturzo, and Gargiulo. My lords, an alteration
1284
was made at Tunis; and that alteration is attempted to be accounted for by a doctor being taken on board at Tunis. Now, mark, I pray you, that circumstance. It is argued, though not proved, that protection was the object which her royal highness had in view, in placing Bergami continually so near her apartments. My lords, it seems that at Tunis, he was to be brought still nearer than he had previously been—he had been before, in the cabin outside of the dining-room, but on this occasion he is removed into the dining-room, and his bed placed in such a situation, that on the opening of the door, they might, in certain positions, see each other in bed. But, whether they did or did not, the bed was so near her royal highness's room, that there was that facility which Dr. Lushington admits did exist of an adulterous intercourse; but still, he says, "Do not draw the inference, that it took place merely from the circumstance of the disposition of the rooms." But, my lords, his bed is placed in such a situation, that he can with ease gain access to her room, through the door of her cabin; and, after that arrangement was made, one of the doors of the dining-cabin was blocked up, so as to leave only one entrance to that cabin, and thereby the more easily to exclude persons after Bergami and her royal highness had retired to rest. What conclusion can any man draw from these facts? Why, I say but one. Bergami is the person upon all these occasions who is thus placed; and facilities are thus afforded to him, and to him alone. I say, therefore, that a man must wilfully shut his eyes to the light, who can doubt about the conclusion to which all this conduct leads. Where, my lords, do they sleep at Tunis? And is not the same disposition made at Utica? It was supposed there was a contradiction between Demont and Hownam, in consequence of what Demont had stated. The question was, "Where did you reside at Utica?" and the answer was, "In a small country-house;" and Mr. Hownam proves, that Utica is in ruins, and that they did sleep in a small palace belonging to the son of the bey. She is not asked whose country-house it was, and it is proved it was a palace belonging to the bey. What contradiction is there in that? Site was not asked whether it belonged to the bey? She swears, as was the fact, that they did sleep near Utica; and, therefore, there is no contradiction whatever.

1285
My lords; my learned friends say, that nothing has been proved, with respect to Zavouan. My lords, there has been something proved, and I will call your attention to it. It is in page 289. "Did you see the bed of her royal highness in the morning? Yes.—Did it appear as if one person only had slept in it or more than one? It seemed much in disorder. I cannot say that two persons had slept in the bed, but it rather appeared to me, that two persons had slept in it rather than one."* Why, my lords, that this, therefore, did occur at Zavouan, is proved by Demont; and the only observation my learned friends can make upon it, is this: "Your opening stated some more particulars, than you have proved in evidence, and therefore the whole case is to fall to the ground." Such is the logic, and the argument on the other side! whereas, your lordships are to look to the facts proved, and if you find they satisfactorily lead you to the conclusion, which that statement was intended to lead to, then, laying aside what may have been stated, your lordships are bound to decide on the proof.
My lords; at Ephesus, a transaction is spoken to by Majoochi on which ray learned friends think they have established a material contradiction to him. My lords, Majoochi states, that a dinner was prepared in the coffee-house, and her royal highness and Bergarni ordered him to carry it within this place, surrounded by a wall, and that they dined there alone—the princess sitting on her travelling-bed, and Bergami on the ground at her feet. Majoochi waited on them, and after dinner they remained there.* Mr. Hownam is called to contradict this part of the statement. He is asked, "Where her royal highness dined?" and he says, "It was in the church-yard, next the coffee-house, where we had slept the night before, under the portico of an old mosque."—"Did she dine alone upon that occasion?" "I am convinced we all dined together. I recollect most perfectly."—"How did you contrive to sit upon that occasion?" "We sat on the ground; her royal highness sat on her travelling-bed." Now, my lords, mark the recollection of Mr. Hownam: "Did any body sit with her?" "I do not remember." Then, my lords, finding that he did not remem-
* See Vol. 2, p. 1142.
† See Vol. 2, p. 820.
1286
ber that, a plump question was put to him—(we are told leading questions have been confined to this side of the bar)—and having got this non mi ricordo, I will show you how it applies—"Are you sure that the rest of the suite were there during the time of dinner?" "I am confident as to having dined myself, and every body else."—"Do you recollect where the countess Oldi sat upon that occasion?" Non mi ricordo—"I cannot recollect the spot where she sat, but I am convinced we all dined together."* I say, my lords, that this is not a contradiction—a man swears positively that the princess and Bergami dined alone in this vestibule; another man, who cannot recollect who dined there, or where the people sat, comes and states his conviction that is all his belief; and upon his cross-examination, when he is asked whether he will swear that that day he dined with her royal highness? he answers, "I will swear that is the impression on my mind—that I dined with her royal highness." I say therefore, that this is not a positive contradiction—a man who swears to a fact which took place within his own knowledge is not contradicted by another swearing he does not believe it; and your lordships will see that Mr. Hownam forgets every thing but this general conviction. He admits the fact of dining under the tent; but as far as it was intended as a contradiction of Majoochi it fails, because he only swears to his conviction and belief, and not positively to the fact.
My lords; after Ephesus I am not aware that any thing particular occurs in the evidence, until you arrive at Aura, and the land-journey from St. Jean d'Acre to Jerusalem. Now, my lords, mark that part of the case, which not only is not contradicted but I think both in argument and in statement, admitted by my learned friends; and if that case be true, as I think I shall satisfy your lordships it is, it strikes my mind as conclusive evidence of the guilt of her royal highness. My lords, what is the case? They travel by night and encamp by day; and her royal highness, after the fatigue of her journey, reposes under a tent which is erected for her, and outside that tent, is another tent, between which, and the tent in which she reposed, two persons are constantly placed to protect her. We have heard a great deal of the ne-
* See p. 500 of the present Volume.

1287
cessity of her having male attendants near her, for the purpose of protection; but upon this occasion not satisfied with Majoochi, and Carlini (the nephew of Bergami), who were both sleeping; in the outer circle of the tent, Bergami himself reposes constantly under the same tent with her, when she stands in need of no protection, and when, if she did stand in need of it, he could have afforded it, as well as Majoochi and Carlini, in the outer circle. I have heard it said, that she came in much fatigued, that she threw herself on the bed without taking off her clothes, except the outer garments. Good God, my lords, she reposes there all day, and because she is fatigued, no suspicion, no inference, arises whatever from her reposing side by side with Bergami under the same tent, because forsooth, she requires a protector in such a situation! Why, if she were fatigued, would not the countess Oldi or Demont have been the person to have been selected? She wanted no male protector. And yet you hear it argued at this time of day, that there is no harm, no suspicion, from a lady sleeping in the same room with a menial servant, exposed to all the indelicacies which must occur during such a repose! and we are now to argue, and it is gravely argued out of doors, that that upon which your lordships have divorced and degraded female after female is no evidence against a princess, because there is a possibility that no intercourse of an illicit and disgraceful kind took place! My lords, if you listen to this, you must repeal those Divorce bills—you never can divorce persons on such evidence hereafter—it must go forth as your decision, that a woman of rank may sleep, night after night, with a male attendant—and your lordships are to proclaim that this may be done with innocence, with purity, and that hereafter women may sleep, night after night, with their menial servants close to them, because there is no evidence that they were undressed, and because there is evidence of there being another bed in the room! Do my learned friends know—(if not I will inform them)—that it is not the habit of any persons in those countries to undress when they repose? Had they taken the trouble to refer to the travels with which Dr. Holland has enlightened and amused the world, they would have found that this is the constant mode of repose. But the Turkish ladies would say,
1288
it is a most extraordinary inference that, though they repose in the same tent in clothes, and with a male in the tent in clothes, no illicit intercourse can take place—I will read a passage from Dr. Holland's Travels, which shows the habits of persons in that part—it is in the first volume, pages 227 and 232:—"Bed-chambers are not to be sought for in Greek or Turkish habitations.—The sofas of their living apartments are the places of nightly, repose with the higher classes—the floors with those of inferior rank. Neither men nor women take off more than a small part of their dress." Why, my lords, in that country, where you hear it is not the babit to undress, where sofas and beds of the description that her royal highness had, are the common places of repose—your lordships are gravely asked to infer no guilt, nay, no suspicion, against her royal highness, for having reposed, night after night, in this manner with her favourite Bergami under the tent, because, forsooth, she occupied a travelling-bed, and he a sofa, and because they did not entirely undress, where it is not the habit to undress! It is to go forth to the world that this may be done innocently, and although no cause is assigned for the arrangement, because, my lords, there is the strength of the case against my learned friends, and there they felt the difficulty of combating this part of the case. I say, then, that their case of protection fails s them—the countess Oldi might have slept under the tent, Demont might have slept under the tent, Mariette might have slept under the tent, Bergami might have slept in the outer tent, without subjecting her to those indelicacies which must take place where persons repose after a journey, and where they repose for so long a period as they did during that journey to Jerusalem. But, my lords, is the fact so? Why, my lords, what is proved by Demont, and by Majoochi? Majoochi says, the inner tent was closed by Bergami.—On cross-examination, my learned friends get out, that Demont's sister more usually attended her royal highness than Demont—Demont says, that the princess was partly undressed under the tent at Aum; that upon another occasion her sister undressed her. Majoochi states that Bergami was under the tent with her, and Demont says, that she saw some articles of Bergami's dress in her royal highness's room. Why, my lords, is this not capable of con-

1289
tradiction? Is this a fact that my learned friends think so trival in the case, that although they take the trouble to contradict Demont on supposed conversations, although Majoochi is to be cross-examined from time to time as to conversations which he may have had, yet, on the vital points on which innocence or guilt rests, neither Carlini, nor any other person, is called to contradict the fact of her royal highness's sleeping under the tent with Bergami, at a time when no reason can be assigned for it, that would be sufficient to establish a verdict in Westminster Hall? Nay, these circumstances are more than sufficient. Then, I say, you are doing injustice to other parties, if on such evidence you hesitate to draw that conclusion which between other parties you draw. My lords, I say again, that this fact, taken by itself, is enough; but when you add the other, circumstances uncontradieted and undisputed in the case, it strikes me that no man, coming to a decision of the case with that impartiality which he ought to possess, can, for a moment, hesitate to decide that that is conclusive and satisfactory proof of adultery. Good God! how is adultery to be proved? Are my learned friends prepared to argue that men and women may sleep in the same room, but unless you prove them in bed no inference is to arise? Is it to go forth to the society of the kingdom, and to families, that such things may be innocently done? If so, there is an end of all female delicacy—there is an end of all those nice feelings which should subsist in their minds—and hereafter no adultery can be substantiated in a court of justice, if these facts are not sufficient to lead to a decisive conviction of the fact.
If that be so, my lords, with respect to the Aura case, what shall we say to the case now substantiated in proof on board the polacre?—that case which my learned friends say is our last prop and stay, in support of this bill—which they have been unable, by any evidence, to shake, or by any observation to destroy. And, my lords, when I come to show your lordships what that case is—how proved—how capable of contradiction and not contradicted—how confirmed by the testimony on the adverse side—if your lordships could for a moment (which I cannot believe you could) entertain a doubt about the Aum case, I say an adulterous intercourse is proved beyond all doubt on board
1290
the polacre, after her royal highness's embarkation at Jaffa.
My lords; what are the facts from Jaffa to Capo d'Anza, occupying, Mr. Flinn says, nearer two months than one, from the 18th of July to the 5th September? A tent is erected upon the deck. My lords, a reason is assigned for this, that in consequence of some horses being embarked on board the polacre, the noise they made and the disagreeable smell occasioned by them below, and the heat of the weather, induced her royal highness to repose on deck under a tent. My learned friend, Mr. Denman, says, it does not deserve the name of a tent, that it is only the awning of the ship easily let down, a mere covering thrown round her royal highness, open to the breezes of the heavens, and not to be dignified with the name of tent. But, what says lieut. Flinn, who has been so eulogized—what does he say on the fastening of the tent? He says, it was fastened down to ring-bolts on the deck. Gargiulo and Paturzo both state how the tent was closed at night. It was closed all round at night. Majoochi also states that. My lords, I beg you carefully to peruse the whole of the evidence given by those two persons; it would be tedious in me to recite it at length. Every answer which they give is most important upon the present occasion. Not a shadow of imputation can be cast upon them—no evidence can be given to contradict them—and therefore the only observations to be made are upon the remuneration which they are to receive for coming here as witnesses. My lords, those of your lordships who know any thing of the manner in which foreign witnesses are paid, know perfectly well, that they always demand and generally receive a very large compensation. My lords, I might refer even to the testimony given on the part of her majesty, and to recall what was stated by the last witness from Morje in Switzerland, as to the compensation she required. She had 70 l. paid, a deposit of a 100 l. at a banker's, and she stated the expectations she entertained as to the remuneration she was to receive. My lords, this captain and mate were withdrawn from their employment, which was active and profitable at Naples—their ships may be no longer capable of rendering profit till their return; but my learned friend, in order to exaggerate their remuneration, makes out that they are to receive a very large sum per annum, and

1291
by that he jumps to the conclusion, that any man who extorts such a sum must necessarily be perjured in every tittle of his evidence. My lords, that is not so—they are to be paid according to the time they are absent—a large remuneration I will admit. I know that these captains of vessels always require large remunerations, and I could have shown that large remunerations have been frequently demanded and paid to procure testimony here. My lords, are you therefore to believe that those two persons came here deliberately to perjure themselves, in consequence of that remuneration? Try their testimony—if they have perjured themselves, could they not have been contradicted at almost every step of the case. What do they depose to with respect to the state of the tent by day? "Oh," my learned friends say, "by night protection was necessary—a landsman was the best person to assist her royal highness on the deck." Bergami was the person, of all others, to be selected on the occasion, though Hownam had been a sailor, and Flinn slept in his hammock on the helm. But both the captain and mate state not only that the tent was closed by day, but that it was closed by the orders of Schiavini. Where is Schiavini? Here. He has been sent for witnesses—he has assisted lieut. Flinn with extracts in order to enable hint to refresh his memory as to the periods at which he performed the voyage—he is at Brandenburgh-house with her majesty; and yet, although this fact is proved by them, Schiavini has not nerve enough to be produced! Because of the terrors of my learned friend's cross-examination, the ladies—the countess Oldi and Mariette, will not expose themselves to the hazard of a slip—but, has he not nerve enough to deny this fact, which speaks volumes, which shows what was passing between them at that time, too disgusting to allude to—that in the face of day, when he was reposing on the bed one day, the princess hanging over him, Schiavini gives them orders to let down the tent, and in his presence that order is obeyed? Are these men perjured? have they come here to give false testimony for the remuneration which they are to receive? The proof is ready at my learned friends hands. They may produce Schiavini—he is still in their service—they knew nothing, I suppose, from which to suspect Schiavini—he has done: nothing to excite the suspicions of her ma-
1292
jesty—he has not corresponded with the baron Ompteda—he knows nothing of what passed with respect to the supposed picking of locks, to get the secret correspondence of her royal highness—he is the person who, the witnesses say, ordered the tent to be let down by day; and yet, in a case where her majesty's innocence is to be made as clear as the sun at noon-day—where she challenges all inquiry, and promises to produce all the witnesses in her favour, Schiavini, who is at Brandenburgh-house, is not called. And I say his not being called, leaves the captain and the mate uncontradicted, and being uncontradicted in that part, what reason have you to disbelieve the other parts of the testimony? Why did they think it necessary to call count Vassali to contradict the supposed journey to Sinigaglia, and to throw a cloud over the Carlsruhe case. They felt how necessary it was to call Vassali—they had confidence in his nerves—but they dare not produce Schiavini, Carlini, and other persons. By whom was the light given out of the tent at night? By Bergami—and it was given to Majoochi and Carlini. Why is not Carlini produced? They cannot produce him—they know he would establish a fact damning to the reputation of her majesty; namely, that Bergami was with her, and that he was the person by whom the light was excluded from the tent, in order that they might repose in darkness under that covering.
But, my lords, it is said, the hatchway is open—the communication below is open, and therefore there was no mystery in the transaction; and therefore you are to presume innocence, because there was no mystery. I know not by what logic or reasoning you are to arrive at this conclusion. There are periods when a passion of this kind gets the better of all reason—they find it can only be gratified under the tent—it is not convenient to sleep below, Bergami is the only person removed from the dining-room to sleep under the tent; and no person can believe, that, for five weeks together, they could sleep under the tent innocently, because there was no proof that they were undressed. I again refer your lordships to that which must pass, with a man and woman in this situation; and I say, that no woman of delicacy could repose, not a night but an hour, with a man under the same tent, who had not been carrying on that illicit and disgraceful intercourse

1293
which the evidence fixes on this occasion. Are we to have reasons for this? Yes. Lieut. Hownam is asked to it. Questions are put to him, not only by my learned friends, but your lordships; and, my lords, I wish to refer you to the various accounts which he gives, as to the different reasons that induced him to think there was no impropriety in Bergami sleeping under the tent. It is important for you to observe that; because the case is put on that. They say it was necessary for a man to sleep under the tent. Some of your lordships asked, Would not a sailor be better than a landsman, is not he more accustomed to the rolling of the ship? and he says, Schiavini was a landsman; and yet Bergami, who is not shown to have been at sea before, is the person selected, although Schiavini, as a landsman, would have been an improper person to have on that occasion. But, my lords, it is really trifling to see the reasons—there were no suspicions of the crew when he is asked, whether other arrangements might not have been made, "they never occurred to him before"—"undoubtedly there might." Lieutenant Flinn slept on deck every night except one, and therefore he was close at hand to assist her royal highness in case of danger. But, my lords, what would be the conduct of a woman anxious for protection, but not desirous of affording facilities to this illicit intercourse?—Would she not have had countess Oldi with her under the tent? We were threatened by Mr. Williams, that it would be proved that other persons slept occasionally under the tent. Why is not the countess Oldi produced, if she was the person? But if she required protection, why not do that which was done at Aum, have hammocks round the tent to protect her from danger, or the intrusion of the crew? Nothing so easy—but no, that would not answer the purpose. Bergami must sleep under the tent—the travelling bed or the sofa is the place where he is to repose; and because they are about three feet asunder, and because in the morning when they are seen the princess is dressed and Bergami in his Greek robe—all this is to be considered innocent, and you are asked to infer that nothing improper took place, and that for five weeks her royal highness can sleep under the same tent with a man for no other reason than that she preferred his society! Your lordships are asked in the case of a princess, and a menial servant, to believe there was no
1294
impropriety, no indecency, no illicit intercourse during that period, and lieutenant Hownam is the witness to prove it! "Oh!" say my learned friends, "you rely on lieut. Hownam's belief on this occasion—if you take his belief, take it with his account of the impression on his mind." My lords, lieut. Hownam's "belief" is not our case; but it is a confirmation of the positive evidence on the part of the bill of Gargiulo, Paturzo, Demont, Mejani, and Birollo, against whom not the slightest imputation has been cast, nor a contradiction attempted to be given. No one has ventured to contradict it, except lieut. Flinn, who attempted it at first, and said, he did not know where Bergami slept, and that he has no belief on the subject. Mr. Flinn having broken down on his cross-examination, and lieut. Hownam having proved the case for the bill, they are tired of the witnesses. They then make a diversion—they call for Restelli, and then you hear no more of the case for five or six days. They were sick of Flinn—they found that he would not stand the cross-examination, and Hownam let out too much. And then neither Schiavini, Carlini, the countess Oldi, Mariette, nor Hieronimus, every one of whom could have spoken to the transaction, are called—they are kept snug at Brandenburgh-house, and your lordships are never to be favoured with the sight of any one of them—and my learned friends find fault with us for not calling witnesses. We have called five witnesses to the fact; they call nobody to contradict it, and then they say the proof is not sufficient. I say if the case is not true, you might contradict it by five witnesses, not one whom you produce. The absence of that contradiction proves the evidence of our witnesses; and, if that case is proved, there is an end of all cavil, all doubt, all hesitation, on the subject; because, whatever other parts of the case are affected, this stands; and if so, it adds the greatest confirmation to the other parts of the case—for, undoubtedly, if adultery was carried on for five weeks under that tent, there is an end of the uncertainty and improbability of its continuing elsewhere; and when you find them in the same habits of friendship (if it can be so called) I say, the polacre case not only establishes her royal highness's guilt there, but it corroborates and strengthens every part of the case against her. Need I at present dwell longer on the scenes on board the polacre.

1295
But there was one fact which my learned friends, with great adroitness and care, kept out of your lordships view. The transactions of St. Bartholomew's day are never mentioned by my learned friends. That day is celebrated throughout the ship in a manner which shows the connection between her royal highness and Bergami. I say it needs no comment. Her royal highness is seen walking on deck, arm in arm with Bergami, the crew are regaled, the ship is illuminated, the cry is, "Long live the Princess! Long live Bartholomew! Long live the Chevalier!" The only one whose birth-day is celebrated—it is celebrated on board ship, and for two years it is kept as a day of festivity and mirth. Her royal highness parades the deck, arm in arm, with him, and yet Mr. Hownam cannot recollect the date of that fact, it was so usual it made no impression upon his memory. Does this fact speak nothing? does it not evince—a degree of friendship I cannot call it—but of connexion between these parties? Can any man doubt that that fact shows most strongly, not only what was the estimation in which this man was held, but the degree of familiarity and intercourse existing between these persons? But this is so immaterial a fact, that it has not been noticed—notwithstanding the industry which every body could not but admire, and the ingenuity, of Mr. Denman, who went through the case—except when he made a jump over what had passed on the voyage to Genoa. Mr. Brougham jumped over the polacre case—which Mr. Williams (who said it was by accident) as well as Dr. Lushington and Mr. Denman came to at onec—they said it was the case of all others which they wished to grapple with—and yet the festivities of St. Bartholomew's day are wholly omitted from the facts on which they comment! My lords, it would be absurd to dwell longer on this. That omission was designed—they knew they could grapple with the fact—they knew it reflected light on the other parts of the case; but their ingenuity was employed to keep your lordships minds free from what had passed before, and therefore, then, did they argue, that as no guilt was proved before her royal highness went on board, that case was not sufficient to establish the guilt—but, when you look on all the transactions on board the polacre, if you could doubt about what passed under the tent,
1296
you could have no doubt about the other facts spoken to by the other witnesses.
Did her royal highness bathe on board? She did—that is proved by Gargiulo, Paturzo, Majoochi, and Demont. But then it is supposed on that point we have a contradiction to Majoochi, with respect to the bath on board the ship. He states, that on one occasion he carried water for the bath, which was taken in the cabin. Demont confirms Majoochi, even though: she is not precise as to the place where it was taken. She speaks to two occasions—she cannot state whether it was in the outer or inner cabin. But then we are to have recourse to measure, and lieut. Flinn is called to show, that in a cabin of ten feet and a half, a bathing tub of six feet could not be placed! I think, my lords, it is hardly necessary for me to comment upon lieut. Flinn's evidence, because, after what took place in your lordships presence, upon the testimony of that unfortunate officer (for so I will call him), I think your lordships will be of opinion, that no reliance whatever can be placed upon the testimony which he gives in support of her majesty's defence.
But, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, says, "What inference is to be drawn from his taking a paper from his pocket, and swearing three different ways as to the hand-writing of that paper—first, that it was his own—afterwards, that it was Pasquali's—and, by one of those accidents that do fall out on these occasions, having a document by me which had been given by Schiavini as a recommendation of one of our witnesses, by comparing that with the paper produced by lieut. Flinn, I had not the least doubt whose the writing was. My learned friend put the question to him, and out came the answer at once, as if a thunder-bolt had struck him, that it was Schiavini's hand-writing. Why, my learned friend, Mr. Denman, forgot the eloquence displayed towards the con clusion of Mr. Brougham's speech. I have no doubt it has not been effaced from your lordships memory—it never will from mine—how beautifully he descanted on the importance of slight contradictions. We were referred even to Holy Writ to prove his theory; and yet, my lords, when it comes to be applied to their own wit ness, "Oh dear; that is an immaterial cir cumstance—it is true he has made a mistake, he has sworn it was Pasquali's writing, and then his own;" and though it

1297
comes out by the most accidental circumstance that ever took place in a court of justice, that it is Schiavini's. Then my learned friend's eloquence is forgotten, and they turn round and say, "it was an accidental detection, and from such an accident we are afraid to produce any other evidence before you." My lords, it was one of those detections which has not occurred on the other side. My lords, the fact Mr. Brougham was commenting on, was the answer of Sacchi, as to the tumult at Dover—a fact as immaterial to your lordships inquiry as the paper, and more so; because this was a paper to refresh his memory, but on that occasion Sacchi's evidence was to be destroyed on that which he afterwards explained. But lieut. Flinn's evidence is to be propped up as that of an English sailor, an English lieutenant, whose honour ought to be as dear to him as his life—the arguments are not to be applied to him, but they are to be applied to an Italian because he is an Italian. Let us not be led away by such attempts to delude us from the real state of the case. I say lieut. Flinn on that occasion was asked to that paper over and over again. He could not have a doubt by whom it was written, I say, therefore, whether he wilfully, or by mistake, gave the evidence he did, on either ground you cannot believe that man as a witness in support of her majesty's defence.
But, my lords, answers were extorted from him by some of your lordships, which carried your conviction, not to say of the imperfection of his memory, but that you could not rely on his testimony, when he was examined as to the situation of the binnacle, and the light it threw into the tent when he drew it up to answer questions put to him by her royal highness. Why, my lords, the whole of his evidence on that subject, which is too long for me to recapitulate, shows, that with respect to that fact of the binnacle, as well as with respect to the letters, he was swearing most rashly, and that the light could not, in the position in which be placed it, have reflected into the tent in the manner he stated, and the reason for not having a light on deck was so strong, that it was impossible to be at the different places he was, without seeing the defect in the binnacle, which he could have remedied at little trouble and expense. Did it throw light into the tent? No; for lieut. Hownam when he went
1298
up accidentally after the tent was closed, found it dark. And I beg your lordships to recollect, that he stated it was impossible to get out on deck, because the tent came to the combings of the hatchway. I admit that, I believe it to be the fact—because Gargiulo and Paturzo tell you, that after the Queen and Bergami had retired, and the light was put Out, the tent was closed by Bergami, and closed, I believe you will think, in such a way as to exclude the observation and intrusion of persons on deck. But lieutenant Hownam felt he ought not to intrude into the tent, after that time—it was not merely because her royal highness was there, but he believed Bergami slept there; and it was because Bergami and her royal highness were there, that he did not intrude. That Bergami did sleep there is sworn by Gargiulo, Paturzo, Majoochi, Demont, and Mejani; and in consequence of a squall, on one occasion the water came over the deck, and her royal highness was seen to be conducted below by Bergami—lieut. Hownam says by Flinn; but he did not go below, because his attendance was necessary on the deck; and therefore I believe the fact to be, that Bergami and her royal highness descended the ladder together. Whether Flinn was with him or not, is immaterial—the fact is proved, and lieutenant Hownam tells you that as one cause of his belief, that on that occasion the princess and Bergami descended the ladder together.
Now, my lords, with respect to the bath—if Demont and Majoochi are believed, the bath was taken by her royal highness below the deck—I care not in which room, that is immaterial; the main fact is, that Bergami was present at the time she took the bath—whether therefore it was in the dining cabin, or in the sleeping cabin, can make no difference. The transaction speaks for itself, because the presence of no man could have been endured by a woman, between whom and herself the last favour had not been enjoyed. But here, Bergami is the favoured person to be present. It is almost impossible to talk of this fact in any terms which ought to be applied to it—I will not do it—it is too indelicate—it is too offensive—it must strike every one, if it is true, it proves the case—if fake, the countess Oldi, Mariette and other persons on board might have been called to prove that Bergami was not present when that bathing took place. But no such persons are cal-

1299
led. The fact of bathing is proved by Gargiulo, Paturzo, Majoochi, and Demont. And as to Hownam's opinion and Flinn's belief, you will place no reliance on that. With respect to the former, you have only his opinion. The question therefore, is, whether Majoochi is to be believed, or whether Hownam is? But I say, the material fact is, that the bathing did take place, that Bergami was there at the bathing; and whether it be in the dining or sleeping cabin, is as immaterial as any fact in the case.
My lords; let me call for a moment your lordships attention to the circumstances attending Majoochi's evidence. I have heard, with some surprise, that Majoochi and Demont are persons not to be credited; and the arguments with respect to Majoochi, are those answers which were given by him, that he "did not recollect," or "did not know" particular facts; and from those answers my learned friend, Mr. Brougham, argues, that all his credit is destroyed, and that he is not worthy to be contradicted in the case. I would not venture to apply my learned friend's arguments on the subject to their English witnesses, but I call them in aid to apply them to their testimony; because, if his argument is correct, there is hardly a witness of his who might not be attacked on the same ground. But Majoochi was cross-examined; once he was had up upon information, which so opportunely arises to my learned friend on all occasions as to something which had occurred to him in Gloucestershire. Your lordships will recollect the period, as you will recollect the other periods of diversion in this case—it was after Paturzo and Gargiulo had been examined—the case pressed—they must make a diversion in your lordships minds, and in the minds of the public—they must expose him to another cross-examination to destroy his credit, and damn his testimony. We are amused with his being in Gloucestershire, and with his being in a coach, and with his conversations with this man, that man, and the other a cross-examination which "tortured"—that is the expression applied to my learned friend the solicitor-general. Mr. Brougham's cross-examination truly is no torture at all—his manner, his look, is so delightful, that the witnesses approach your lordships bar with the greatest delight and pleasure to undergo a cross-examination from him! Majoochi looked a little alarmed, as well he might.
1300
We heard in the papers, and at the bar, of Flinn's fatigue—that he had undergone a long examination in chief in a hot room, and that it was too much for him. But, Majoochi was under examination in chief a day and a half—he was then cross-examined a day and a half—he was had up a second time as to those conversations—and then, at the conclusion of our case, when the solicitor-general was about to sum up, and when therefore it was necessary again to make a little agreeable diversion in the case, he was cross-examined again, because they had discovered that he had been at Carlton-house; they examined him to Gavazzi and Visetti, who have been ordered to attend this house; letters were produced, and he was supposed to be able to write, when he swore he could only write his name. That will not do—he is called up a fourth time, in the course of the defence, in order that another contradiction might be proved against him by Carrington, who received such a eulogy from Mr. Denman. Their witnesses are of spotless purity, but Majoochi's non mi ricordos are at once to destroy his testimony and credit, because my learned friend, by an ingenuity of artifice which did him credit as an advocate, but which had little effect on your lordships minds, extort that answer, non mi ricordo, which Omati, that accomplished witness called by them, had had a hint not to use. Where are all the contradictions to Majoochi's evidence? What is become of Mrs. Hughes, and all the family which he was desirous to marry at Gloucester? of Johnson, who was in the stage coach? what has become of Gavazzi, and of Visetti, the lacquey de place, who showed him about London, and pointed out the sights worth seeing? They are summoned, but not one is produced at the bar! Nay, some of them have had an inspection of Majoochi, to identify him: they do not prove he was the man with whom the conversation took place in the stage coach. I say, my learned friends felt the effect of Majoochi's evidence—they knew that, notwithstanding the non mi ricordos, though they might amuse the public for a moment, when his testimony came to be examined, it must be tried by this test—whether the facts can be contradicted or not. Finding that, they cross-examine him three or four times—and, my lords, recollect the manner in which my learned friend dismissed him the third time. He said they should not want him again. But

1301
they find Carrington, and then Majoochi is to be called again to be contradicted by that man of veracity, who was "born a gentleman," as Mr. Denman stated. My lords, it is my duty to examine the conduct of witnesses, and the manner in which they depose; and if they can point out from Majoochi's evidence, any such contradictions as exist in the evidence of Carrington, I will resign Majoochi to his fate. But, when I come to show you Carrington's evidence, which I must do, I will prove to you such contradictions, such evasions, as must satisfy you, that you cannot rely on the testimony he gives. What is the fact to which he attempts to depose? Why, that at Ruffinelli, in the servants hall, Majoochi began to talk of baron Ompteda, and on the following day not satisfied with the oration in the kitchen, he makes a speech in the court-yard, while they are preparing the carriage to go to Rome Trifling circumstances are to beat-tended to in this case. I do not rely on this as a fact to shew Carrington's evidence is not true; but it is a fact—he says, Ruflinelli is only four miles from Rome, so short a distance, that though it is all up-hill, they were not above three quarters of an hour, or an hour going, and that Ruffinelli is nearer than Frescati. Is that true? What docs Carlo Forti say—that it is twelve miles all up hill, and, as I understood him that Frescati is nearer than Ruffinelli. My lords, this is a fact in the case; and when we are trying evidence, we must look a little at minute facts—much more simple facts have been brought against us, and therefore I trust I shall be excused for doing that.
But he states a conversation with sir John Beresford on the occasion of his being on board ship. What were his answers when examined on that part of the case? My lords, you will find them at page 591: "Were you in any other ship in his majesty's" service than the Poictiers?" "No."—"Have you any certificate from sir John Beresford of your service under his command?" "I had it, but I have not it now."—"Do you mean to say you have lost it?" "I have."—"But you are certain you received a certificate?" "I am."—"Were you rated a midshipman on board the Poictiers?" "I was."—"How long?" "I do not know rightly how long—I suppose during the time I was there." Now, my lords, mark the next question; which points to facts which cannot be for-
1302
gotten.—A man who has served on board a ship, must know the name of the ship—if he has served on board of many, he cannot answer that he has served on board one. "What situation had you served in before you were on board the Poictiers as a midshipman?" "I had been at sea in the merchant service when I was a boy—then I had been on land, and got my livelihood in the best way I could."—"You are to be understood that you were never in his majesty's service before?" "No," he says. Now, these questions must have brought it to his recollection. They are not like the questions of Mr. Brougham to extort a non mi ricordo—they are questions to facts which he had some motives to conceal. He did not know the evidence could be procured to show he had spoken to untruths, and therefore, for some reason or other, he disguised the truth. He is asked afterwards, "Are you to be understood to have joined the Poictiers as a midshipman capable of doing your immediate duty, or as a youngster?" "I went with sir John Beresford on board the Poictiers."—"Do you mean that you entered as a youngster to learn your duty, or did you go upon the quarter-deck of that ship, as a positively effective midshipman?" "I did not go upon the quarter-deck for some time, but I understood" now, my fords mark, "I understood I was to be a midshipman."—"Are you positively sure that from the time you joined the Poictiers you were rated midshipman?" "I am not certain whether I was rated at the time or not, I was rated at the time I left it, which I saw upon my ticket."—"You are perfectly clear in your own mind that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than at your own request?" "No thing else."*
Now, my lords, after that, he is examined again. In page 693, he is reminded of those answers, which I am sure left the impression on your lordships minds that the man had been on board no other ship but the Poictiers that he had been employed by land and in the merchant ser vice before. He says, "I understood the question to apply to my having been with sir John Beresford as midshipman; I had been in other ships before." Now, my lords, how was that possible? he had not been asked about his being a mid shipman at the time the first question was
* See p. 404 of the present Volume.

1303
put to him. The question was, "Were you in any other ship in his majesty's service than the Poictiers?" (not as to his employment; but as to the fact) "I understood the question to apply to my having been with sir John Beresford. "Do you think this explanation satisfactory? But, if you do, let me carry your lordships attention to what he swears upon that occasion had passed between him and sir John Beresford on board the Poictiers; for in the next page he is asked, "You have stated, in reply to a question in page 588,—'Why did you leave the navy?'—that you did not like the sea, and sir John Beresford got you your discharge?" "Yes."—"You were asked, 'You are perfectly clear in your own mind that you left his majesty's service for no other reason than at your own, request?' to which you answered, 'Nothing else'?" "Yes,"—"How long had that dislike to the sea been upon you?"—Now, my lords, mark the answer:—"I had often been promised promotion, to get a gunner's warrant; but I never got it during the time I was in the Majestic When I came into the Poictiers, I was also told that I should have promotion, but I never got it till the latter part, when sir John told me I was to be upon the quarterdeck. I told him I did not wish to be on the quarter-deck, for I had no friends or money to support me on the quarterdeck; that I would wish to leave the service, if it could be got."* Why, my lords, is this a fact which a man can have forgotten? If such a conversation took place could a man be mistaken about the fact? Could such a conversation have taken place? Why, my lords, when I come to call your attention to sir John Beresford's evidence, you will find, so far from that being the fact, that it was because sir W. Gell had desired to take him into his service; and, therefore, as a means of getting him out of the navy, there was a contrivance to get him on the books for a few days as a midshipman on board the Poictiers, and then he was transferred to the This be to get his discharge. But here is a conversation sworn to, on which no man could make a mistake. Fortunately for the ends of justice, sir John Beresford was called at the instance of some noble lord. My lords, I say it is not very usual—I never saw it before:—it may be right—to your lordships. deci-
* See p. 491, of the present Volume.
1304
sion I bend—but I never heard of witnesses being called to support witnesses, merely because there had been an inconsistency in their testimony—I never yet heard of it—I believe it would have been somewhat of a surprise on my learned friends, if I had proposed to call persons to speak to their belief as to the conduct and character——
The Counsel were directed to withdraw.
Earl Greystated, in explanation, that it was his lordship who had moved to have the examination of sir John Beresford, not to support or contradict Carrington, but to ascertain the truth; and in which motion the House had concurred.
The Counsel were again called in, and
Mr. Attorney Generalproceeded as follows:—
My lords; I was stating that sir John Beresford had been called—undoubtedly with a view to elucidate the truth—but I considered it an unusual thing to call a witness to support the credit of another witness who is supposed to have tripped. I rejoice that he was called. He has disproved what Carrington said. He is asked, "Are their lordships to understand that Carrington never was a midshipman of the Poictiers while you commanded that ship?" "Never."—"Do you recollect any conversation with him as to his being rated as a midshipman, or brought forward in the service as an officer?" Never."—"Do you recollect his complaining to you that he did not like the sea, and that he wished to get his discharge on that account?" "I will state the proceedings before he said he did not like the sea." He then states the application of sir W. Gell, and the conversation in consequence with Carrington; and when he is asked, "Had he, or had he not been a midshipman for twelve months before he left the service?" "No, he never had been a midshipman before he left the service, to my knowledge."—"Did he ever decline the appointment of midshipman?" "I never offered it to him."—"Do you know whether he did or did not receive midshipman's pay for a twelve month?" "The books can best tell that."—"Did yon ever tell Carrington that he was to be on the quarter-deck; and do you recollect his replying, that he did not, wish, to be on the quarter-deck, for he had no friends or money to support him on the quarter-

1305
deck." "He never told me any such thing, You are certain that you never gave him any reason to expect promotion as a midshipman during the time he served as a quarter-master?" "Not while I was in the ship."—"Did Carrington ever state to you any difficulty in point of expense of dressing himself and maintaining himself as a midshipman? "—Sir John says,—"From a sense of his ability as a sailor, be would have assisted him, as be did others in the service till he could pay him again."* My lords, I say, therefore, that sir John Beresford has directly pointedly contradicted this man in his evidence with respect to the conversation on board the ship, and that the man has expressly contradicted himself, when he swears he had never served on board any ship but the Poictiers, and when he stated he had been a midshipman, and had walked the quarter-deck, and the mortification he felt at not being able to support himself as a midshipman.
Then, my lords, is this man to be the person to contradict Majoochi about a conversation with him about baron Omp-teda? What did it signify to Majoochi's credit whether he had stated such a conversation or not? He tells you he did not. Carrington is the only person to prove that conversation. The Genoese servant of Mr. Hownam could have confirmed Carrington. That man is not called; and therefore I submit, that if there is to be a balance between Majoochi and Carrington, Majoochi is the person in whose favour it ought to weigh.
Lord Chancellor.—Have you done with that part of the case.
Mr. Attorney General.—Yes, my lord, I was going to another part of the case.
The Counsel were directed to withdraw, and the House adjourned.