The Sun. — London, England, 1820-10-28 00:00:00

ess 'der e ", kCa the t `' U o ),01 a irev; 1' Gen t L 0 of 11 that eve r 1 )Cel Of till -- ~ iC~~ tioa, to J SitU al .0Y 311 0 1) . .111 ° I CC IO 0) .3 5 Irice" t al' est , the "i De r v` at habit ° t:tids b ' ea e 5 Lotl i ,(}at",al is " ° :01 :hose bE P I 'rad . s eci riept )- 0 1 ad /1 4 , 11 • oyal 'Ol Pr ose pi „, • ; P' ranks ct Sete Iv ic e. [ the row ht e eig, e dy shiP* It' at noliP , Bergamitook her Royal Highness by the hand', and led her into an adjoining room. This hap- Pelted when all the company had left the,room. Mr. Hownam was there, and Dr. Holland was there, but not a question was asked of either of them as to the purchasing of the chain. The Learned Gentleman here took occasion to ani zriadvcrt on the contemptible conduct of some of the public Newspapers (one in particular), in AVIliCh things were published from day to day, since the commencement of this trial, which were a disgrace to the country that per _ .. _ znitted them ✓ and an indelible stigma upon those out of door advocates of her Ma- jestys cause who sanctioned them. Their base cowardice prevented them from fairly confront ing their antagonists in the falsehoods they had the audacity to advance. Facts, which could not be controverted by evidence at that Bar, were pro pagated throughout the country by means of the newspapers, as falsehoods, solely for the purpose, In which they succeeded, of deluding the public. The Attorney-General then proceeded to the evidence of Lieutenant Hownam, where he ad mitted that Bergami dined with her Royal High ness in his couries dress. He was asked if he had dined with her more than once, and he said never after in the dress of a courier ; but he subsequently admits that he might have dined Ivith her Royal Highness again in the dress of a t'otrier; and Bergami alone, said the Attorney- General, was the only servant ever admitted to the table of her Royal Highness, and that too whilst he was a menial servant. It had been in- timated that the dress of Bergami was superior to that of a common courier. Did the dress cause degradation ? No ; the fact was, that Bergami Was a menial servant, and that Bergami alone of all the menial servants dined with her Royal High -11,,,55. It was stated, that Bergami was the maitre d'hotel, but this was not true, for Mr. Hownam Prov e s that Hieronymus was the maitre d'hotel, and not Bergami: and yet Bergami dined with her Royal Highness when he was courier, whilst Hieronymus, who was the maitre d'hotel, was not admitted to that honour. It has been stated, that Mr. Burrell joined in the amusements at the Villa d'Este, but I can hardly think that he ever did so. These amusements, which have been attributed to the condescension, and affability, and kindness of her Royal highness, did not take place until all her English suite had left her. It was said that the English witnesses Would drive the Bill out of the House ; but all that the witnesses called by her Majes- ty's Comm!' proved was, that with their own eyes they saw no acts of indecency. And this Is the sum of their proof.---Vhat, my Lords, did one of the Members of your Lordships' House prove.? I mean Lord Guildford : he visited her Wlajesty and found Bergami, her servant, Ivaiting at table, and in a few months after, on his bray to her Majesty's Villa, he finds her Majesty arid Bergami alone in a canoe on the Lake of Como, and on the same day he saw the same man, this Bergami, who was waiting behind her chair a few months before, sitting by the side of her Majesty at table. What must that Noble Lord have thought when he witnessed this ? Had he no suspicion that all was not right ? Had he no doubt of guilt ? Why did he recommend his sister, Lady Charlotte Lindsay, to leave her Majesty ? Was it not in consequence of the indelicacy and impro priety of what he had been the witness of ? It has been said that private confidence has been vio lated : I say no, I say it was necessary to exa mine that Lady, (and I should not have discharg ed, my duty if I had not) as to the impressions upon her mind, and I admit that she might not, as she says, have witnessed indecent conduct be tween her Majesty and her courier. Can there he now any doubt how reports injurious to her Majesty were circulated, when her conduct was as 1 have described ? And what kind of evidence have some of the English witnesses given before Your Lordships ? If I were to read the answers of some of the witnesses, I could find as many " non mi ricordos" as there were in the evidence of Majocci and Rastelli. BARON ONIPTEDA. At one o'clock the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OR the suggestion of the LORD CHANCELEOR, was on the point of withdrawing for a short time, when Mr.DENMAN said, his Learned Friend Mr. Brougham bad a very important communication to make to their Lord ships, and that although not then in the House, he would in stantly appear at the Bar. Mr. BROUGHAM immediately appeared at the Bar, and *poke to the following effect—My Lords, while his Majesty's Attorney-General has been addressing your Lordships this tuorning, and has stated we have proved nothing against thupteda, I at that very moment was put in possession of some most important documents. I have, my Lords, received letters °f this Ompteda, proving him in correspondence with the ser l'ants of the Household of her Royal Highness,attempting to lit:- duc e the servants, and to procure faisetestimony against her. These i m portant letters, my Lords, are in the hand-writing of Otopteda, and are addressed tu Marlette Duasont, then in Me service of her Royal Highorss. The ArfORNEY GENERAL expressed his astonishment that further evidence should be offered after the case was closed. The Ea r l of LIVERPOOL said, that this was certainly not the "age of proceedings in which the letters could be received by. t heir Lordships. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that if he had not made the coin ruunication to their Lordships the moment he was in posses sion of the documents, he conceived he should not have done his duty to their Lordships nor to his Illustrious Client. Lord HOLLAND—" Whatever proceedings the House may afterwards adopt on this important subject, I think this is nut the tune; h ut no blame attaches to the Learned Counsel, Mr. Brougham." Lord LIVERPOOL did not blame Mr. Brougham,. hut only said this was nut the time. d.'l.lltMiat theUr M arquess of LANSDOWN thought it was Aue - in can -o Queen's Attorney-General should hstvetendered that information to the House'at the earliest possible munieht. . Harlot.; dune so, the Attorney-General fur the Crown might avail himself of such knowledge if Ire thoughtlproper, but the Attorney General for the Queen bad only done his duty in communic a ti ng it. ' The Earl o f DONOUQHMORE could not help expressing :)%v entirely he differed in opinion from his two Noble fiends. If there could ever Wine a time when it would be t to enter jute the inquiry proposed by the Attorney-General tur the Queen, circumstanced as the case was, the evidence . upon both sides b e i ng conc lud e d, was• a question which he Would not undertake to determine; but this he would say, that at all events the present was not the moment to enter tain it. He should not have supposed it pOssible, if he had but' witnessed it, that such a statement could have been in terposed - at such a monient. Whatever importance might he attached to the statement itself, still nothing could justify its bei ng ifitruded at such a ti me on their Lordships. Such was his decided opinion, and he should think that he had tailed in ' , his duty if he had not stated what he felt. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the question befor e the House was, that Counsel should withdraw Itotu the Bar. He did not sit there to give any opinion as to the conduct of Counsel, or,the form in which the communica tion should be made. He would therefore put the question, The question , being cat riect;Cou use! retired at a few minutes after one o'clock, and returned after the expiration of hail an hour, when The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed his Re ply was not, he said, his` intention to suffer himself to be diverted from'. the course he was pursuing by the extraordinary application which had just been made, which he would say, was one of the most extraordinary ever made to a Court of. Justice. He should now advert to the testimony respecting the staircase at the Villa d'Este, where what was called a secret staircase by Majocci, Mr. Hownam had described as a staircase leading to his apartment, and -which might also be used by the servants if they chose. He would now call their Lordships' atten tion to what passed on board the Leviathan. Here. Capt. Briggs made such an arrangement of the sleeping rooms as would have appeared to any one most consistent, placing her Royal High ness's female attendants near her ; but her Royal Highness altered this arrangement, and fixed Ber gaini next her own cabin. Why was this done ? was it necessary for her safety on board.the Levia than, Capt. Briggs, that Bergami should be next her? He would confidently say, no such neces sity existed. It was true, that the communica tion internally between the two cabins was closed; but there was the greatest facility for communi- , eating externally, and he contended, that Capt. Briggs's evidence proved this might be done. On board this ship her Royal Highness proceeded to Sicily ; and. here the evidence of Dumont and Majocci proved several acts of familiarity pass ing between her and Bergami ; a contradiction with respect to the kissing was attempted to be. set up between Dumont and Majocci, but where was the evidence that they spoke of the same time ? From the facts proved at Catania, he sub mitted that an adulterous intercourse took place. He then proceeded to read the evidence of Du mont as to the situation of the bed-rooms, and to the fact of her having seen her Royal Highness come in her undress, with her pillow undef . her arm, from Bergami's room. Much had, indeedy been said of Dumont, and of the little credit due to her testimony ; yet, after all that eloquent display of argument on the part of his four Learned Friends—after all the oratory bestowed on this chamber-maid—the very last witness they called was a milliner from Morge, in Switzerland, to try to contradict her as to a 'collateral fact. This proved the little reliance they had on the impression they had been able to make on tier testimony. The great argument which.was raised against Dumont was founded on her letters ; ters which he was sorry to say had been pro cured by paltry intrigue, and which, he con tended, proved nothing against Dumont'; but only that she.was aware that her letters might be intercepted, and was, therefore, careful not to say any thing which could injure her sister's character. And there was a remarkable passage in one of the letters written to the Villa, in which she writes the names of her Royal High ness and Bergami in one sentence, and thanked them for the kindness she had received from them conjointly. This sentence, -he said, conveyed proof of the knowledge whiff she at that time possessed. So, as to the criss-examinatim .of Dumont, who was tortured with questionvhoub. after hour, as to her having been called Countess Colombier, and other circumstances, as if to lay a foundation for discrediting it ; and yet no evi dence had been called on those assumed facts. — He denied that Dumont's evidence:had been dis credited by her letters. His Learned Friends did not believe she was so discredited, for they had tried other means of discrediting her. He was willing they should look with caution to the evidence, but it could not be 'wholly discarded from consideration. If the evidence as to the visit of her Royal Highness to Bergami's room , at Catania was false, Mariette and the Countess of Oldi might have been examined to contradict her. So, at Catania, an honour and titles were 'procured for Bergami. No , such distinctions were bestowed on 'any other of the suite. So at Augusta, here were portraits and pictures of her Royal Highness given. to her servant. How could this extraordinary conduct be accounted for, except by the acknowledgment that an af fection existed between them ? But all these cir cumstances, and all others that occurred between Genoa and going on board the polacre, were pass ed over by his Learned Friends; and why ? what, because they were of no importance ? Oh, no ; not so ; but because it was not convenient to them to advert to them. He could not so pass over them, nor ,wquld their Lordships do so. Ire must next call their Lordships' attention to what passed when her Royal'Highness .went on board the Clorinde,'and Capt. Pechell refused to sit at the same table with Bergami. Th4conduct did Capt. Pechell honour. He had seen . Bergami a menial servant,and saw no good foundation for his advance ment; and therefore refused - to sit at table with hint What had been - the conduct of her. Royal Highness on this occasion ? If conscious of innocence, she would have . said to Captain Pe chell—This individual is 'a faithful servant of mine, and for his faithful services I have advanced. him; and, if it is no dishonour to me. that he should sit down at my table, it is no dishonour to you to sit with him. And if,.after this, Captain Pechell had refused . to permit. him to sit at. the same table, she would have. expressed her anger and indignation, and .her determination to inform his superiors of the insult offered,to her. .Initead. of which, • rather than_ lwr '.favo . urite's • feelings should be hurt, she retireS.terself from the :Cap tain's' cabin, and contents .herself w e ith.the society of Bergami, and his sister, . the Countess of The Learned Counsel then proceeded to com ment on the evidence as . related, to, the transac ..tions on board the polacre out, to Tunis, and af terwards to Ephesus'a.nd Utica ; and contended, that the facts stated 'by 'Majocci and .Dumont, were not at all contradicted, but rather confirtlVl l ,: and that all tended to prove. the familiariOef, passing between .the Princess- and Bergami. At Ephesus (page 9.3), Majocci 'stated, that the din ner was prepared at a coffee-house, afterwards taken to an old buildingiwhere her Royal highness and Bergami dined alone, and were afterwards left by themselves' alone. Mr. Hownam was after wards called to contradict this fact, but all which Hownam could swear to, was the impression on his mind. This, the Attorney-General con tended, was no contradiction to a person who swore positively to a fact. So as to the reposing under the same tent, it was said her Royal High ness was too much fatigued- to think of amorous acts, that she wanted protection, and that no harm could arise from her Royal Highness and her menial male servant reposing under the same tent. Why, if she was so much fatigued, would not a female servant have been her best attend ant ? And would it now be contended, that be cause persons were dressed, no illicit intercourse could take place ? Why, he would shew from the travels of Dr. Holland, an authority which he thought his Learned Friends would not dis pute, that persons in that country seldom or never undressed, but reposed on sofas with the greater part of their dress on. The Learned Counsel then read a passage from Dr. Holland's travels, stating the custom to be as he had de scribed, and then proceeded to cite several pas sages in the testimony of Dumont and Majocci, to prove that Bergami did sleep under the same tent with her Royal Highness on this journey, and that no attempt had been made to contradict them, although Marlette, the Countess of Oldi, Schiavini, and others of her Royal 4lighness's suite might have been called to contradict it, if ,it was capable of contradiction. He would ask, how was adultery to be proved, if this was not , proof? If it was to go forth to the female part of society in this country, that males and females might sleep under the same tent, or in the same room, without being liable to censure; there would be an end to all female delicacy; and ' he would undertake to say, adultery could never be proved in this Country again. This was the Aum case ; and he would ask any rea sonable man, if there could lie any fair doubt of an adulterous intercourse having taken place here ? But if it might be inferred here how much more likely was it that the intercourse had been continued on board the polacca ? But here, said Mr. Denman, will you call this a tent ? this was only a loose covering made of the awning of the ship, and was not worthy of the name of a tent ; but it appeared in the evidence that this loose tent was fastened down to the deck with ring bolts, and was closed during the night. A great deal had been said as to the remuneration to be given to the Captain and Mate of the po lacre, Gargiulo and Paturzo. It was well known that foreign witnesses would not come over with out large remuneration : as a proof of this, he would only allude to the milliner from Morge, who acknowledged to have received 701., to have. had 1001. deposited for her at a banker's, and who confessed she still looked forward for fur ther remuneration. But the Mate and Captain, it was said, had perjured themselves ; if so, then why did they not callSchiavini to contradict them ? for it was sworn that Schiavini was the person L who ordered the tent to be closed when her Royal Highness and Bergami were reposing under h His Learned Friend had said he would not ex pose the Countess of Oldi or Marietti, who might le.nervous, to the torture of cross-examination ; he'would not call others ..lest they , should be tainted by the conspiracies of Baron Ompteda ; but would either of these objections applyito Schiavini ?—Was he too nervous to stand a cross examination ? Was he tainted with the conspi racies of Ompteda ? \Vas he a party to picking locks, or to perjured testimony? It was trilling to detain their Lordships with observations on these i neon sistencies,or on the contradictions to be found in Hownam's evidence. Whylvas it necessary that 'Bergami should sleep under the tent ? Why, said Mr. Hownam, for the safety of her Royal Highness, But why Bergami? Oh, because Bergami was the fittest person. Why not Schiavini ? Oh, be cause Schiavini was/a land's-man. Well, so was Bergami ; so that this reason fell to the ground.' And he would ask, as he had before asked Mr. Hownam—why was not the' Countess of Oldi placed under the . tent instead of Bergami ? He would answer this question ; it was because her Royal Highness could not do without the society of Bergami. The Counsel on the other side said, all the case for the Bill was rested on the belief of Mr. Hownam. He denied that assertion ; the belief of Mr. Hownam only corroborated the testi mony of the Captain, the Mate, Majocci, Dumont, and others. To contradict the witnesses he had named, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Hownam were called ; but Mr. Flynn having broken down in cross-exa mination; and Mr. Hownam having let out too much, his Learned Friends grew tired of evidence. The case was abandoned, and for several days their Lordships heard nothing of it. They were amused only with inquiries after Rastelli and Ruganti ; but the answer to the case was abaft.: doned—it was determined not to answer it; they gave up the testimony of the Countess of Oldi, Variette, of Schiavini, of Hieronymus, and: of all. the other witnesses who might have answered. it. He would ask, under these circumstances, if. any doubt could remain on the: minds of any one of the adulterous intercourse having taken place on board the polacre ? But if there was any doubt reniaining,_ the fact of the'celebration of St.. Ba rtholomew's day, and the, union of 'his name with that of her Royal Highness, would' remove it. So as to the fact of taking the bath on board. It.was attempted to contradict... Dumont and Majocci"on this subject by the evidence of Lieui, Flynn, who swore that the tub was considerably too large to go intOlier Royal Highness's room; but-of that unfor tunate_ man, he would . , say, adverting to what he sworee - as to the hand, 7 wrlting of the paper, .that whether what he swore in that respect was. by, de- . sign or othervvise,he..wasawitness not to be cred.4o) his testimony wns'not to-be ,relied on. Sp as to his account _of- the light Penetrating the tent from the'binnacle, Which Flynn swore to,:it was con tradicted.byillownam, who stated that the tent, on.one occasion, when he entered- it, was in dark ness.: - But . wiiW respect to the bath, he cared not in which room it was taken,' Whether in the dining-room or sleeping-room cabin. If Dumont and Majocci were believed ; and they were not contradicted, nergami was below when her Royal Highness took the bath. This was suffi cient alone to establish a case against her Ma. . jesty ; and, if it was not true, Oldi and Mariette might have been called to contradict the fact. He had heard;-• with some surprise, that Ma. jocci and Dumont were not to be credited ; and. that the want of memory rendered it unnecessary to attempt to examine any one in answer to them. In answer to this, he would only say, look at the testimony of several of the English witnesses, and. consider how Majocci had been treated. His Learned Friends had talked of the torture of cross-examination, and the tone and look which had been assumed by the Solicitor-General. Did. his Learned Friends forget Mr. Brougham's man ner towards a 'witness ; was it so pleasant a thing to be cross-examined by his Learned Friend ? was his look so good humoured, and his man.. ner, under such circumstances, so pleasant.—(A. laugh !)—And was it forgotten that poor Majocci was under examination in chief a day and a half ; that his cross-examination was as long ; and. that he had been three times since cross-examin ed ; and. was it surprising if he was a little alarmed. Poor Mr. Flynn was of a different mould to Majocci ; he was to be pitied ; he was nervous ; he was overpowered by the heat of the room ; and every allowance was to be made for him. Majocci had been called back, and question ed as to conversations with Mrs. Hughes, Mr. Williams, Mr. Johnson, and others, in stage coaches, and elsewhere ; he had denied them with the expression of Non vii ricordo. How was it that Bisette, the lacquey de place, who escorted Majocci about London, was not called ? How was it that Mrs. Hughes was not called ? Why was not Mr. Johnson, who travelled in a coach with Majocci, called to prove that he had not spoken the truth ? and, last of all, why were not the whole of the female part of the family of the Adams's called, whom Majocci wished to marry ? Why were they not called to contradict him ?—(Laugh ing.)—The reason was, that they had seen Ma jocci, and not one of them could identify him as the person with whom they held these memo rable and extraordinary conversations. He must next refer their Lordships to the evi dence of Carrington, who was by nature a Gen tleman, as his Learned Friend had said ; but, he believed, on referring their Lordships to the evi dence of this Gentleman, they '.vould think with him that he was a witness that was not to be believed. The Attorney-General then proceeded to point out the difference between the testimony of Car- rington and Carlo Forti, as to the distance from Rome to Rufinelli, the description of the road, and other circumstances which took place there on the journey to Rome ; but the most important contradictions in his testimony were, his answers as to his service on board the Poictiers, and no other ship in his Majesty's service, and his negative to that question, and as to his being rated as a Mid shipman, &c. ; all which answers he afterwards endeavoured. to explain away, by saying, he un derstood the questions related to his service un der Sir J. Beresford, lie also stated, that he had a long conversation with Sir J. on the subject of his quitting the service ; and that he stated his rea son for wishing to quit the service was, his want of friends and money. SirJ.Beresford had been called, ' and that Hon. Officer declared he had no such conversation with him, but understood Carrington was desirous of quitting the sea-service to enter into that of Sir W. Gell. The course pursued on this occasion was an extraordinary one ; he meant one witness being called to support another. No Counsel would have been allowed to do such a thing ; he believed it was done at the suggestion of one of their Lordships, who might consider that course necessary to elicit the truth. Earl GREY said, he was the person who had suggested the calling SiK J. Beresford. Their Lordships had agreed in the suggestion, as pro per; and he could not suffer an assertion so un founded to pass, as that-of the Learned Counsel, that he had called Sir J. Beresford to support the credit of Carrington. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL intended to impute blame to no one ; on the contrary, he rejoiced that Sir John had been called, as it had enabled their Lordships to detect Carrington's testimony, and to obtain a true statement of facts from the Hon. Officer who had been called. Sir J. Beres ford had denied, in positive terms, that any such conversation had passed between him and Car rington ; and added,, if Carrington had stated his reason for wishing to quit the service was want of money , only, he shOuld have advanced it he- - . to him, as had done to others in similar situa tions, by' way of loan,. till :he could have re paid • [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then read the evi dence 'of Carrington, and pointed out what he said were apparent contradictions, and thenasked if the evidence of this witness was to be credited, and if Majocci was not more worthy of belief ? In IVhjocci's evidence he said there were no contradictions ; Carrington's was full. Carrington swore that Majocci told r hirn about Baion Omp teda, and that he threatened to kill him. Ma jocci swore he knew.nothing of the Baron. After the inconsistency aqd contradiction in Carriug ton's evidence, I ask your Lordships if he is to be believe& in preferonce to Majocci ,At thi period oftha A.ttorney-General's speech, their Lordships,'adiourne4 till to-morrow morn ing, when the ; Learuga,Viounsel will resume his address 4 ; , . A circumstance 'Otd*re_d at Southampton, on Sunday se'nnight, Which had nearly p roved fatal : a gentierriauwho haibeo ikk tAiings here during the, sewn, arose sufl4.olY4 frpm.his bed about 4 ,o'clock,:and ran haStily, diOymj,talrs, shutting the door after - him, and rnatleV the water-side, where he plunged in ; his di..lttesSecllady followed him to the shore,,and intreated. him to return, but could not ,pievail.. Fortunately his progress was much im :•pedeil by 'MO and werds,and the Custom-house boatsucceeded:ln securing him after an effort of nearly two hours, during which time he refused every assistance. The unfortunate Gentleman (who is a Colonel in the Army) was labouring under a temporary derangement.