The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-04 00:00:00

Cu ss i n \vas, preamble•Bill,•,and:When it to intention to the ,evidence necessary ha Support this Bill, to compare the evidenoe that d:0 been promised .to support it, and the _ovi b,eee that has : been brought to support it, have litliescurnaatutal;ked7by indisposition ; for he would by eloquence have shewn the -imperious h e . r e v ss , i ty of this Bill being thrown out.] —I say h ave i'pßsty , s - conduct has. not been. proved , to 13,4 teen licentious and indecent in public_,and and the. ; Preamble is unsupported. Lordship then read the Preainble of . the ilk i ti f e -IMY Lords, ISay, that it is not to be fairly (er red, that because her Majesty raised Ber aao;) and took his relatives into her Service, that tllari te rY Was cf.mmited by the parties. No honest b.ll - „,e a n say that it is a fair and, just conclusion. it 14° rds, I admit 'that Bergami was .a.courivi, %it i s in evidence that his family 'was reduced, t 11 a a „` l ,t 'his . sister, the Countess of Oldi, to an Italian Nobleman, and that ivlien situation' was altered, he had shewu the.ts:lf every • why ' wor(by of . it: I agree that di c i a - iNist not only be moral suspicion, but ju tide l'roof of th r adultery, before w e can de licin,';ainst the Queen. ' Impropriety and sUs atio-on- a re nut enough, and cannot take the situ gaol! judicial . proof. The elevatiOn of Ber wa:l„rnaY excit e suspicion, but, my Lords, there t er% t hat distance between the Princess and he r t tini an t, as fir as the base of a mountain from its 'There is 'lesS suspicion created by a ti„ ,- °1 low origin or situation being in the si tua which ? Bergaini was placed. than .there si to lli ` i , bety a man of rank, for a man of low a tid -at `°( l would no more dare to take an improper s l n decent liberty than the meanest wretc h on t aro " would think 'of asSaultin! , a servant.— f(1 Person 'of rank, I say, would have excit is gjt'ater suspiCiOn ; and his low situation, r a ' t i 'n evidence, in Ju avor. of her Majesty ( I, r l f ? . than o th e rwise. The Noble -.Lord ( Lau tvid` a lo commented with great severity on the th e en ce of Lieut. Ho w nam, and yet, :he said, (L a e Adence of Majocci was not contradicted. — of u ghter.)—My Lords, his . evidence was full h er l°n tradiction.—[His Lordship showed a num ilkfef instances where he gave false and contra tv'a)rY evidence, and then read the following ' i f t , e "e•]—" Yea made the beds ? e ‘ r ,,e there sheets on them ? Non mi ricordo." k r "here did your felloW-servants (the livery ' \Ants) . sl ee p ? Non riCordo."---My Lords, Iv e hi c , ° , u hl not say if there were sheets on the beds 4,11'" he made, and he could not tell where his ° w - servants-slept. But, 'my Lords, lie could t it rt o hearing a creaking in the bed under the t i - throurrh the deck of the polacre, and he could g - s f e ri be th e mea ning lie wished your Lordships to 1, Pon that noise. I was disgusted to hear the fel ' , " , I v ';bis desc r ibing the use of a bottle sickened me, ari -t was stui)rised that the Counsel for the Bill 1.1 4311 . 1 t 1 press such a f i lthy question. My Lords, a i 9 cei was asked " Do you know a person a 'ned 'Hughes?" He answered - Non mi ricordo 4 ; 4 , 4 ; 1 1 he afterwards admitted that he knew him, f th'y were, such great .and, intimate \ ' ‘ 'ends, that he used to call him " Brother 1" i‘e s net this contradiction clear and decisive ? ,s! Lords, the four principal witnesses, Dumont, t o - 7 hl ) Rastelli, and Majocci, have been proved ' ) .l c? un wor thy of the least credit. They a r e all d iscarded servants, they were discharged in -17 p is and all the Proof of suspicion of t guilt r i ° , h , , " n ed to the time they were ,in her Majesty's tee ;- not a breath of slander, no one had lis, lien' even an impropriety since these wre tches service. These creatures were all turn 4ft a way," too, for n'ilsconduct, and two of them t,"_,they had possession of important secrets. d'i f -° ". God, nay Lords, is it likely, is it to he cre ti.'cl, that a woman like her Majesty, supposing t ( 1 : 1 1 t s he bad been guilty of the conduct imputed t. a ' i er s that she would have discharged those ser v„t4s in whose boSoms WI), important secrets o f t r i _ e lodged, when at the same time, she knew she existence of the Milan Commission—When knew that she was surrounded by spies, and rs°ll s endeavouring to entice her domestics to Pr against her life and character. It would s o eei lY to suppose that she would have acted madly. I admit the possibility that she might Oev madly.e done so; but as you draw inferences ag ain s t d l !' in some c a s e s, I say you must in this instance th 4w the inference in her faVour, and that th:, witnesses are perjured. Dumont admitted a ,;"' she was discharged for saying that which f alse she admitted it in her evidence, and or her letters; she also admitted the justice • o uer discharge ; 'she admitted her conduc t Sacchi h a d been improper ; , she admitted tet letter, ,their connexion had been criminal ; lienshe apologizes, and says, that it was passion that had ruined - her. Can any e relieve this woman's evidence ? She swore thatander Majesty's dress at the ball was indecent, di d '`,_ r William Gell swears it was not; and so S et , n ets, whose evidence cannot be excepted. of — also said, that Bergami was three quarters a n hour i n ' the Princess's roam at Naples, Then She was changing her dress. If this had n ot been disproved completely by Sir W. Cell, Itte°4l(l not, have believed the statement ; for if e, Parties were sleeping together nightly, it was ho t n likely:that they should take that opportunity to he be together for such a purpose, especially that Iv ! Majesty s h ou ld p l ace D u mont at the door to t i l itn ess her g u ilt. Th e statement was evidently Swor e of the tine de chambre.' Majocciti that h er M a j es t y was present when Dr. 14 d 11 and dres se d th e f oo t of Bergami. Dr. Hol swore it was not true. It was said by the Nobl e E (Lauderdale) that this fact was nit,. v ev ltant ; 1 say i t i s i mpor t an t ; f or it was given ri e vidence to Shew the familiarity of the parties; evid if it was unimportant, why was it given in ti l „ 'nee at a ll ? Th e f a ct, my Lords, is this ; witnesses have been brought to prove too nut •el i and they have said that which has refuted t tt their l own evidence. Sacchi swore to the dis roaue e at Dover : and he' swore that was the ea lis „ 0 , his cha ng i n g his name ; yet it turned t but t nat the di s t ur b a n ce did not take place till he rude aft er th a t per i o d. He also swore that • r ude up to the, carriage of her Majesty, between Rome end Senegagliai -arLe merning, and - undrew the curtains, and found her and Bergami in a situation which I will not de scribe.. It has been proved by a number., of witnesses that this statement was entirely false. Carlo Forti had sworn that - Sacchi was not the courier on the -journey, but himself. Vassali con firms him, and Col. 0 liveri corroborates both ; and, what is. more important than all, they prove that it was not an Italian carriage in which her Majesty rode, but an English :one, in which there were no cortaios, but glasses, and blinds. Therefore) my Lords, it was a natural impoSsibility that Sacchi should have undrawn the curtains as he stated.--- My Lords, -I . have shewn ,that the evidence of .thcs , , corrupt witnesses must be thrown aside as unworthy of the least credit whatever. A Noble and Learned Lord has :said, that, setting aside these evidences a there is sufficient testimony that is not suspicious, that is unimpeached, to satisfy him of the adultery having ; been committed. 111. y Lords, there is not a jot or tittle of evidence to be found against the Queen that is not full of sus picion. Where is this unimpeached evidence ? Where can we find it ? Is it the person who swore to the Adam and Eve scene, who has been completely contradicted ?. Is it a ihelsoatman, who swore to Bergami and lier Majesty kissing on the .Lake_of Gomo before a doaep or fourteen boats men, - vlto has been contradicted . by a person who he admitted was on board tit the time, and this persota was nearer to the parties said to be kissing than the first witness. But, said my Lord Lauderdale, the witness for the Queen was blind, his eyes were so had. that he could not see the kissing. My Lords, it is strange that the Noble Lord (Lauderdale) could see nothing in favour of the accused, and all against her. But it turns out, and the Noble Lord may set it, if he looks at the evidence, that this man's eyes were not bad till two years after this transaction,. when her Majesty was in the boat on the Lake of Como. ,His Lordship, seems inclined to-give credit to any- one but'a credible witness. He will believe bricklayers, gardeners, boat-skippers, chambermaids, lacqueys, and discarded servants, however improbable their evidence may be, but he will give no credit to the Oath - of an English witness. He will believe the lowest and filthiest rabble that ever- were brought together, and will not give credit to those to whose evidence no exception can justly be taken. Caucati, the bricklayer, says that he was at the Villa d'Este, and his men were waiting for work, and he went to look for the architect, and by some accident he got into the house of her Majesty, and I be lieve into her Majesty's room, and found her and Bergami sitting on a sofa, in a very indecent situ ation.. Can any one of your' Lordships believe this incredible story ? what business had he in the house ? . and _if he did go in, is it to be sup posed that he would `not have seen some of the suite of her Majesty before he got to her cham ber ? It is not to be credited, especially when we see how witnesses have been hired to come to swear to that millet' was false. We have 'it in evidence that Ruganti, who has not been cailecl as a- witness, - was the person wit° was sent by the Milan Commission to fetch Rasfelli. This Rastelli swore to seeing the hands of her Majesty in the situation I shall not repeat ; this Ruganti, we have it in evidence, was the person who went to Pomi, and Offered him .-;ewards, make a man of him, if he would only . swear to something against the Queen. Poini has swore, that Ruganti asked him to swear that he saw Bergarni putting his hand up her Majesty's pet ticoats when she was riding oa an ass. After this proof of subornation of perjury, can any man put confidence in any one of the witnesses who .has sworn to facts of which he was the,,only person besides the party accused who witnessed them ? My Lords, I cannot give credit to one of them some have been proved to have been hired to swear falsehoods, and all possibly may have been hired, and the fair, inference to be drawn is, that they have. A fact strongly corroborative of it is this—they hare sworn that they told no person of what they had witnessed till after they went before the Milan Commission ; and is it too much - to -say that they were engaged to swear what they have done at your Lord ships' Bar ? Why should they keep these facts concealed in their bosom ? No, my Lords, the truth is, they heard that a fortune might be made by swearing against the life and honour of a cruelly-injured woman, and they went and offer- , ed to swear to those facts which never , took place.—(Cheers.)--7They knew they should be, well paid for what they swore.—(Hear, hear !) Why is this proof confined to the lowest rab ble among the wretches who have come to your Lordships' Bar ? Not one has been brought who is at all respectable, or is deserVing of credit. How is it, my Lords, that the Queen should never act with indecency before any others, except a dozen boat-skippers' or a number of bricklayers, and never before a person of condition. Oh, says the Attorney-General, she took care never to demean herself' so before a person of condition. I say, my Lords,'a person of condition would not have exposed what he saw : would, I ask, the Noble Lord (Lauderdale) have been a witness ? No ; and her Majesty must know that persons of low condition were easily induced by money to swear in some cases What was false a and could she doubt that they would hesitate to swear what was true ? But it never did take place ; it is false ; and I cannot give any credit'to such evidence.—[His Lordship then entered into an argument,shewing the improbability of the Queen sleeping with Bergarni under the tent on board the polacre, for the purpose of commit ting adultery ; when, if Bergami had slept in the dining-room, he could have mounted the ladder and entered the hatchway at any time, unobserved.] My Lords, it has been said,that there was mystery in the case, as to where Bergami slept; there was none. Mr. Williams admitted where be slept, in his speech ; and, when Captain Hownam was examined, he was told to speak that only which he knew of his own knowledge. He was asked, " Where did Bergami steep?"—" I do not know." My Lords, he did not know of his own knowledge. So was the case with Lieut. Flynn : he - did not kriw'ot his own -istsdaVledge and he .was never asked as to -his belief. There was no proof of .adultery being committed under the tent, and no such- conclusion could be &awn ; .there might be suspicion in some minds ; but that must not be :sUbstitoted fcj legal proof.—[His Lordship then commented upon the.evidence of Gargiulo and Paturzo, the Captain and Mate of the polacca. They were corrupt and purchased witnesses.: He did .not credit: a word about the sitting on the gun on deck.; or about his sending away Paturio, lest his morals should be contami nated; and he could not ,find the Queen guilty, upon - suspicious testinionys—upon the purchased oaths of Italian skippers—Bat, my Lords, sup pose I put it bypoihetically suppose that this evidence could be creditedsuppose that:a single act of litsullery had taken place—would - that be sufficient to satifv" your Lordships that this Bill should be passed?—No ; her conduct must be • proved, to be in public disgraceful, lewd, licen tious, and degrading, before the Preamble of the. -Bill was.proved. Much has been said abo ut the disgrace. bronght.upon- this country by the eleva tion of Bergami. What . disgrace ? Is it not in evidence that - this individual so conducted himself as to attract the notice of persons of the -highest_ rank ? And .Was he not received hi ever, Ceurt of Europe • which• the Queen visited, except that from, syhieh the influence of , * UritisiieMinister contrived to expel him. I shall now,. my Lords, proceed to another part of the subject—the policy of passing this Bill' of Pains and Penalties. And here I cannot help re marking, that if the Queen had been tried upon an impeachment, when the Bill came up from the Commons every •Peer would be obliged to vete, - by. laying his hand upon his heart, and saying Guilty or Not Guilty; Had this been ,the case, I would 'have said with the_ Lord Chancellor, "Be just, and fear not." If the facts sworn to by the witnesses for this prosecution have not been proved so fully as to warrant a verdict of Guilty upon the question of guilt or innocence., how much more careful should we be from every consideration of policy, not to commit ourselves. I am .not a man, either in my, temper, habits, or diposition, to advise the House to desist from any fear of popular clamour; my whole life will prove that I am not; but we are here legislating for the Public, and they have a right to be consult ed. I will not deny that improper means hale been used to excite thissclamour, and I heartily wish many things. of this nature had not taken place. The ill-advised Letter to the King, and the Answers to the Addresses, have always met with my decided reprobation; but because I condemn them, are . I to agree to the passing of this Bill ? Do not deceive yourselves, my Lords, by believing that only popular clamour is again s t it. The' Noble Lord on the cross bench has in deed said this ; but I should like to know his authority for.such restatement. It is not the rabble • or thernob, and here I would say that .we ought not, bythe use of such epithets,to irritate the public mind, 'for every day gives some new proof Of the separation of the higher from the hisser classes, whosstra thus deprived- of- their natural protec tors, but all that is: irtuous, all that is wise, all that is honest in the community, is opposed to this Bill of Pains and Penalties. This, my Lords, is a consideration which ought, to have its full weight.; and with such knowledge of the feelings of the country, how can we pass it under the false pleA of state expediency ? With out going too far in my ideas, upon this subject, I can say, that the quality of your decision must • rest upon public respect and public opinion. The facts of the, case, my Lords, may be doubtful or suspicious, if• you please ; but do they amount to a conviction of guilt ? If they do not, let me implore you, without any unworthy ex ,ception in favour of the other House, to ask yourselves how can you with any honour or ' safety proceed, after the opinion which has been pronounced by the Representatives of the people. Suppose, my Lords, you should press the second reading of this Bill, and upon it should be'found that some of those Noble Peers who have usually voted with Ministers, without being party men, and • who have therefore much weight in the public mind, are in the minority, what will be said to a majority composed only of the Ministers and the :Prosecutors ?—My Lords, can any man, with his knowledge of the merits of this case, and his thorough conviction that it . would pass in no other place, conscientiously vote for the second reading ?• There may be some who think they could, but I think very differently. But if, in the majority of the second reading, there should ,be found some Peers who have never attended the House, and others, particu larly, who nevets-attended during the defenceew hat would the Public say to such a majority.? 'Will such a decision have no influence before ' the House of Comm Ons ? And if it should lead to a rejection there, how frightful and fatal will it be. to see the two branches of the Legislature so di vided. But if it is not rejected there, what will be the consequence ? This degrading and dis gusting proceeding must again torment the world for months, perhaps for years—public business must be suspended—the morals .of the people must be perverted,. and the whole country in volved in confusion. What opinion would.be form ed of us from such a proceeding ? We should he the - laughing-stock of all Europe ; Ina this would be the lesser evil of the two. The rejection of the Bill would be the danger. I have heard it stated, that certain Peers have pronounced an opinion, that if the Bill can be got 'through a second reading, it will be amended in a third. .:1` cannot compliment the Nohie Earl at the head of the Treasury for such a trick, and I firmly-tse lieve that he has nevetsproposed,it ; but I will say, that if vou pass it in a second reading, it will be your duty to pass it through a third also.; the Mischief-will be all done by the second reading. A stigma will be fixed upon the character of the Queen as far as this House has the power to h, it 4 and as to the cant of altering the preamble, svhich, I suppose, will be called another advantage to the Queen, how do we know that her Majesty will not spurn the-mitigation ? If she had been fairly tried by the laws of her Country, -and, the proof of the charges bad failed ; she would be en tie tledeo au acquittal ; but here, having failed ie proof of the indictment, the prosecutors propose to go into a Committee, and there to suit the indictment: . .. to the proof. e I f they do this, however, with what face. can - they deny to the Queen the right of being beard again.? If I were a supportereef .. the Bill, and had once committed myself as. to s a second reading, no person on. earth should com pel_ me. to abandon the DivorceeClause, which it would, I understand, ,be . the object: of the Committee to expunge from the next Bill.--- To pass the Bill, _with, the exception, of this • clause, ,would .be - not. only to. degrade the Queen but , the King also ; for it would be declaring that although she .was unworthy of reigning, she was worthy of being the King's wife. I repeat, my Lords, that if you allow this Bill to be read a second time, you have done all the mischief that you can do, and if you should leave the point so unsettled, do you thick the House of Commons-will be stationary. The stigma will be fixed upon- the Queen ;. Wet she will have a right, in the face of a second reading, to the pri vileges and dignities of a Queen, and an. ample provision must he made for her. As a Legislator, 1 . cannot- see, therefore, the policy-of placing a stigma upon the King's wife, who will still remain Queen. of England...My Lords, I have ever been a friend to the rights of the people ; but I have never been the friend of licentiousaese. When I have ope posed the undue extension. of the. power of the Crown, it has been not because 1 was averse to the splendour of. the Throne, but because I desired to see it exhibited only for the honour of the Country. .At times :excluded from poieer, at others invited to partake of it, I have always en deavoured es] steer . a constitutional course ; and in steering this Coinse e n° man has been more expos ed to popular reproach : but I will still persevere, and I. sincerely hope that every one of your Lord,- ships will so act upon this occasion as to hand down to your children the character of an honest man. You are surrounded, my Lords, by miseries and • difficulties, but you will overcome the. worst of them by adopting the course which is prescribed by a sense of justice. I can truly say, my Lords, that no man came into this House, in the origin of the -proceedings, with greater prejudices against the Queen than I did, and , I thought it impossible not 'to be -.compelled to give a vote against her, however reluctant to my. wishes ; • but,.after giving to the whole course of the exa mination the most minute attention, I am prey pared, both upon the charges and upon the ground of expediency, to vote that this Bill shall not be read a second . time. 1 can lay my hand upon my heart, and conscientiously and fear lessly say, Not . Content.---Illis Lordship now sat downe after having spoken for three hours.] . Lord Liveepoor, said, the - speech which they had just heard combined , two questions, namely, as to the guilt of the Queen, and the expediency of passing this Bill. This might involve their Lordships in great difficulties; but, notwith standing• the difficulty, he nrust support the Bill. The question to be considered now was, whether this preamble. had been so far proved as to justify the second' reading of the 13111 ? As to any agreement on this subject, be knew of none. The next questiOn was, whether the Bill should be. read a second- time ? As, to the Consequences arising out of such a mea , sure, he could not now consider them ; not because he undervalued- them, but because he considered this as-not the proper -time to discuss them. The time for doing so would have been on the 19th of August, wheu the subject, with all its bearings; was before them. Having entertain ed the question, however, they having allowed , the Counsel' to join issue—having heard the evi dence fully through, it was now due to themselves, to the country, and to the Queen, that they Should come to a decision upon it. With respect to the al tering the preamble,that would be a subject for con sideration in the Committee. ,He should contend, however, that no difficulty could arise in that respect, as it was'custoinary in Courts of Justice to find a - verdict of Guilty on some counts of the indictment, and of acquittal on others. The No ble Lord had asked him whether, if he could have compared the proof with, the opening, he would ever have proposed this Bill. He would answer, he should have done so ; and further, he would now desire no Noble Lord to support this Bill who did not conscientiously believe the I adultery proved beyond a doubt. He was ready to acknowledge there was contradictory evidence on this subject ; so - 'there was in all great causes. Let their Lordships look to the Douglas Cfi ' MC, to the Anglesea case, and to all other great cases; and they would find it so; but here he would desire their Lordships to give her Majesty the benefit of doubt, wherever doubt should exist; and allowing her that advantage, if he did not shew herMajeaty guilty beyond the possinility of ' doubt he was ready to give up the Bill altogether. A Noble Friend of his had regretted that this case was not proved by English witnesses. He had the same cause . for regret ; but how was it possible it should be so, when the Princess of -Wales took especial care never to have as English servant, or person about her, with the exception of one person ? Was it possi ble then, to have other witnesses ? But it was alsO objected, that the evidence were all discharged .servants.- 11e-was ready to allow that discarded servants seere a description of witnesets who ought to be looked at es ith suspicion; but the accused had the power of negativing their evi dence, by the testimony of the servants who re mained in her Royal highness's family sti throull. lie wou ld not detain their Lordships by going gh all the evidence; but he w eek), for the fairjudg ing of this 'ease, take Dumont, the discharged ser-- who Owed. every thing vant, and Lt. Howie's], to her Majesty, and compare them send he would ask whether Durnont was not confirmed in every cir cumstance in which itwas possible she could be con firmed. by Ilownam ; and indeed Hownam's testi.. mon y, in most cases, pressed heavier on her Royal Hi g h ne ss than Dumont's did. It was unneces sary fot him to advert to the scenes which took place at Naples. If he was to judge on the evi , dente as related to these transactions ) he was 0r (15 9 aile d as to Stio ll the ) f the have el far yet ieell's wit' i)p ig s= fact; e r for ess , og e ti p° ll ver.o s. I t )t i -1 i 1 cor' . rcfr~' upte d " :es j their 000 4 sat a l ` ip,. Istit u ; Is aka - ther e t 51, ; CO lis of' w ha Avo on-th: 5 t iltoo ) ; re j 0 - r o t tb d sevl, powe': ;-;tatei Uo LA •I to acct'