The Sun. — London, England, 1820-11-03 00:00:00

rTying'; id to it s ho b° I x uIII h r e ; rib'' h fir 4 nigh t ►f the Manc e ash arru r 9 be to brf woof sco b t e total st rangers to each 'other until the adul ,ry commenc e d, f or w h en h e too k i n t o, hi s con suler ation the whole mass of evidence, • he wa s convinced tlfat every conscientious man rnus t say that th e a d u l tery was con fi rme d b eyon d 11 a1 . 1 Y . manner of do u bt. H e wou ld go i n to the ti ts tory of thi s f amous hero, Mr. Bergami, who, 21 were told, was a man of no fortune, but that he was a gentleman born. Fortune or no t°rtnine) gentleman or no gentleman, take which way their Lordships pleased, it could ." ar be ' on this case. However, they found in a quart er - master i n t h e year 1800, and a c n atier i n t h e service of General Pino i n the year 1809 ' if he stat e d a n y thing cbatrary to the evidenceti in the printed minutes, he requested s, , 4 , 4 t b e min s ) ht be stopped, for it was not his in sciao/I to do so. He had this from the evidence N i l Si r William G e ll, Mr. Keppel Craven, and r • Sicard. Si r W in . G e ll t o ld th e i r L or dships lat Bergami was hired into her Royal High -4 ri e 's's se rv i ce as a courier, with prom i se o f pro eticm, as he was a man of superior qualifica -4- Mr. Sic ar d h a d, however, told them that pi;arni was only hired on a job, to go to Na co:ma' a courier, and the greatest preferment he of expect was to be continued in the situation 11 1 -c ;arier by her Royal Highness at Naples.— fi ro eir Lordships ,had it in evidence that on the N a 4 ight of her Royal Highness's arrival at r er ress that the lad, William Austin, was sc , l - ; ° _, v ed from sleeping in her room ; this if denied by the witness, Carrington ; but s on his evidence was not impeached, the per who fixed the beds for her Royal bp C ,T i ess and her suite ought to lie believed by ;Veit Lordships before him ; and according ti t ,'e account of the person who had so fixed . I)s e t - ,, l ' ) , t beY could not be better fixed for the per the-aung of the crime charged in the Bill, for by d o ° Y e ning of one door there was a communica "etween the bed rooms of her Royal High apt,,and Bergami. There was one circumstance, 04:1!ntly trivial in its nature, but which on exa .gs;;;"°ll disclosed a vast deal : the courier Ber ,as walking one day after her Royal High k i d 2 I n th e garden, at Naples, and Mr. Craven hos for thei r Lordships that he admonished ter doincs s he would ask for what ? It was f irs tltio ;s time he had heard of a woman being ad- It a d' E ned for her servant following her. He ea u of ten heard of their being admonished be loge out without a servant fol s,4ag th em . B ut w h o was h er Royal.High tf s admonish e d by ? one of her suite, one , her hi servants, her Chamberlain, Mr. Kep solweraven. If th ere wa s nothing but this b ' t er walking after his Royal Mistress, would Ch Q beli eve d t h at t h e i nsu lt offered by the koamberlain to Royalty, by his admonishing her IV O / „ .a , i ,Righness, would have, gone unpunishtal ! lis v mtu not the Chamberlain, for his audacity, been dismissed ? It also appeared that 11 er'll her R oya l Hi g hn e s s di ne d in p r i v ate, that gai r n was the only attendant on her. Their 1 sa - "Ps would bear in their recollection that s kl ; .4 'Charlotte Lindsay had told them that Ber au_' a lways attended her Royal Highness in her tak i n and that her Ladyship would not undet- IN; to say that they did not, iu those walks, th;,‘ a rmin a r m. They arrived at Genoa, and 11 Lady Elizabeth Forbes, Mr. Craven, Capt. ti t : ( e , and Sicard, disappeared ; but the adven- , 4 1 c i r ' somehow or other, still kept close to her, 1 very soon after their arrival there, their `k ' s ° , 4 ., ti'. ; sl, uPs had been told that a brother 'of Ber qiii''s appeared, a sister, an old lady, a young ki th and an attendant for this child. Now, ' ll 4 r espect to these. facts, was there any evi- Ad e ee that her Royal Highness had said in con kaoci4 to any of her old servants, " Bergami is so las, to faithful a servant, that I think it neces tel',"" have his sister, his child, and others of his lon twee about me ?" No such thing. It was ka after the arrival of the sister . that she ist• c'wn to stand to the favourite in that re eda it- In the second place, the remark suggest- Q en s elf s how did this Countess Oldi arrive at - 1 43 a Did she come of her own accord . Cer- Isstsl"l „, - not. Then as her coming was kept pri tab' nnist there not have been a secret on the th s ; ec t between the person who brought her gai tZ ' and her Majesty ? That person was Ber- Iva t Must sit not then be supposed that there li er , a ecret between her Royal highness and i l l ar ni! A. secret between a Princess of le s an d and her menial servant, and that on the t o g 'mPort an t su bj ec t o f th e Lady of Honour I .l4t e d n troduced into her family !—(Hear, hear.) that re Was a further secret, because it appeared .is stv " T uell the Countess Oldi was living in her Ma -0://,:,,s ho use, and dining at her table as Dame Li sil i ne ar at Milan, neither Dr. 'Holland nor kis' ) - l c", ant lloweam knew who she was. The . ttis t 7 r , -- " I n('-M of the Countess Oldi to the sc.- Pow , o f sole Lady of Honour was most You ng , e- " 4 ... t evidence of guilt. Secrets between led k 'rentleirsen and young Ladies often "as ,° dangerous consequences ; but here secret confined to the breasts of a not : es s and h er servan t. Il e h o p e d he was as , a , - "ggerati ng • but really this fact struck him e( , Bs er ' y a• What! a secret between a Prin hat da person who had entered her service 1, 1 ' v " months b e f ore for a job!!! Leaving i g h ° , 4 : the only E ng li s h man leffin her Royal sa g le Ss's service was Mr. Burrell—(A Peer s ted that Mr. Hownam also remained)— Nr' s : l , 141 Mr. Hownam. But no Sooner did Mr. ii I,, ‘ " t " quit her s erv i ce th an s h e b e gan to indulge v his P l aYs, and, amon g others, blind-man's buff, the person's relations. This was established evidence for the defence, that no' sooner nes,, s ll the En g li s h ou t o f h er Royal High isietie service, than these amusements were coin lat10::1 on account of Bergami and his re to sh e 1 - 1 e should have occasion afterwards col4:w that th ere was no smal l l ot o f th em ° :1 1 ted , about her—not less than thirteen. Couriera' c ould all this be attributed ? This ta ken "as employed for a job—subsequently Short bite her Royal Highness's service—in a very b ece sn , 4 ' e , Proved by Lady C. Lindsay to have 4 tiv au Ina, favourite servant—his relations are ce `' i nto his mistress's service at Genoa— at Milan his sister gets into the place of Lady of Honour to her, a seat at her table, and a state of close companionship. Mr. Hownam had proved that the courier himself had been admitted to her Royal Highness's table at Bellanzona, at the Devil's Bridge, and another place, and at the Villa d'Este he was established dining regularly at her Royal Highness's table, where a Noble Lord opposite (Lord Guildford, we presumed) had the honour, if such he esteemed it, of dining there in company with him and his sister. Theatrical en tertainments succeeded, in whirls her Royal Highness played parts with Bergami's relations, before an audience which amounted to about 200 persons. 'What inference could be drawn from this ? The Noble Lord then proceeded to. comment upon the evidence of Mr. Hownam, who, he said, had dexterously avoided the ac knowledgment that any entertainment had taken place on St. Bartholomew's day on board. In that evidence the eros§est prevarication had been made. As to the n 'theatre, Hownam's recollection had s heen guilty of treachery. He had \ not recol lected whether - her Royal Highness played Co lumbine, but he remembered that she played an Automaton, a thing that could be wound up to any thing, and she was sold as a machine !. Nov, could their Lordships suppose any case stronger than that of a Princess taking her courier to hei• table, promoting him to such transcendent honours, and playing with and for the amuse ment of his family ; and all this within the short space of eight months I - Here then was sudden and rapid promotion. And what service had this person rendered to her Royal Highness ? ' One of her visitors had taken notice of his figure, but forgot every other circumstance attending , him. It was yet to be learned how the circum stance of appearing with a sword drawn when there was a fear of robbers, could have entitled Bergami to such a distinction. What then- was he to presume from Bergami's not being called ? He would contend, that her Majesty was called upon to bring him to the Bar as a witness, in a greater degree than ever existed for, the calling of any man.' The Noble Lord then adverted to the change of apartments on board the Leviathan, as established by the evidence of Captain Briggs,- observing, that that change occurred at a time when her Majesty had been aware of the very strong suspicions excited to her prejudice by the rapid advancement of Bergami. On board the Clorinde the most suspicious arrangement had taken place, and Captain Pechell refused to sit at the table, in consequence, of the fact that this courier, who had waited at table on `a former occasion, shad been dignified to a, seat at it. Did he mean to censure Captain Pechell for this ? No ; 'Captain Pechell had acted by this refusal in a manner highly cre ditable to himself.—(llear, hear, hear!)—Her Royal Highness was only Sour days on board the Clorinde, but even for that short space nothing would gratify her liberal feelings but the keep ing a separate table, for the purpose of enjoying the society of this highly favoured man ; this man who, -within the space of "a year, had been advanced from the post of a courier. This she did, notwithstanding-the admonitions which -she had received from Mr. Craven; and the second admonition conveyed in the knowledge that there was a Captain of the British Navy, who found it irnpossible, consistent with what he owed to his rank and station, to sit down at the same table with that so often named individual ; and perhaps with ,further admonitions, for it ap peared that long before an admonition had been pronounced on her Royal Highness's conduct by the late Sovereign—that Sovereign, whose treatment of her had been so highly pane gyrised by her Counsel—and that if Mr. Hownam's own declaration was to be cre dited, she had also received an admonition from him. The parties having placed them selves in this suspicious state of familiarity, embarked on board the polacre, and the state of the apartments there was the same as on shore. He contended that there was nothing in the evi dence to shew that Bergami's room had been occupied by time Doctor taken on board at Tunis. The Noble Lord then called their Lordships' attention to the evidence of "Lieutenant Flynn and Mr. Hownam, which proved how far those volunteer witnesses exposed themselves, and to what fidelity they were entitled. They had the acknowledgment of Mr. Denman, that the Soli citor-General's severity of cross-examination had led the former witness into some apparent (as he would have it thought) inconsistencies and con tradictions—but there was no other way of deal ing with a witness of that sort, but by exposing, if possible, in the presence of the Court, the en tire falsehood of the tale he endeavoured to palm on its credulity. The Noble Lord then read, as a specimen of the style and manner of Mr. How nam's evidence, the passage in which he stated, that he had not observed whether, on St. Bar tholomew's Day, B(srgami and the Queen had walked arm in arm on the deck ; that they walked - as usual ; that they might have walked arm in arm; that her Majesty could not walk on deck without the support of somebody; that they were then in the port of Syracuse ; that they walked in the way they always did ; and lastly, that if . they had walked arm in arm, it was so usual an occurrence, that it would not have excited any surprise in him. So that here, continued the Noble Lord, was the witness cavilling and pre varicating about that which he knew to be true, about that which he had seen a hundred times. Such was the evidence they had to deal with. — Unless the evidence of Mf. Hownam was con , firmed, he could not believe a word of it. The question was, how to choose between these two Gentlemen ; for they were in many points quite opposed to each other. He felt himself -bound to look to facts ; and judging by that standard, he preferred evidence of one in some instances, and of the other in others. His Lordship next adverted to the necessity that a person should sleep near her Majesty on board the polacre, and commented with great severity upon the evidence of Mr. Hownam as to that subject. That witness had, he said, admitted ; in one place ; that no danger ex isted, and itvanother, that it had,in one place he said the crew were to be suspected, and in another that they were not. Now, if there was no mys- tery in the tent: in which her Majesty lay, there Lever had appeared before the public two more perjured witnesses than IloWnam and Flynn. The Noble Lord then animat4erted on the testi- molly of Lieutenants Hownarn and Flynn, whom he designated_ as - two precious witnesses, and who contradicted each other.' The evidence for the defence' had been incomplete so far as re lated to the polacre; and yet Oldi,' Bron, ilieronymus r Austin, Schiavini, and Camera, lad not been. .called. The fact was, that Lieutenant Hownam's evidence in favour of the intercourse on board the polacca was supported by five other witnesses. There had been little, very little done, to impeach the evidence of Ma jocci and-Dumont, much as it had been abtfsed. Majocci's evidence was more • connected than that of many of the' witnesses ; but he had said non nil ricordo, and this had been made the ground of a very unjustifiable attack. But, in a manner to impress. the public mind, it was stated that he _had been contradicted . by Mr. Hyatt, a Mrs. Hughey, a Mr. Hughes,. a banker's clerk, and by a Mr. Godfrey, with Whom he had travelled in a stage coach ; and yet' not one of these persons had been called, which would have been the case if they could have contradicted 'lla.- peel. Carrington bad been called to contradict Majocci ; but Carrington's assertion, as' to his being a Midshipman, was contradicted by Sir John Bey ford ; and CarringtOn was riot a wit- ness entitled to any credit. - His Lordship went on, as far as we could collect, comparing the evidence of Majocci with that of Sir William Gehl and his servant, Carrington, as to the evi dence which the latter had given of what took place in the servants' hall at ttuffinelli. He was understood to say, that he preferred the evi dence of Majocci to that of Carrington and his master. His Lordship further statedTthat Hever) , word of the evidence which could be at all scru pulous were struck out, there would remain the evidence of Vincenzo Gargiulo, Luigi. Gal dini, Giuseppe Bianchi, Geroleirto Majaut, Alessandro Antonio Bianchi, Carlo Fail catti; Giuseppe Galli, and Giuseppe Sacchi, which ought to be contradieted, 7 and which might have been contradicted if _they had spoken what was not true. His other observations appear ed to be chiefly applied to the elevation of Bergami, the evidence of Vassali, the circumstances which were given in evidence against the Queen as to what passed at Catania, at Amu, on board the polacre, and at Ephesus He defended the-pro ceeding by a 13111 of Pains and Penalties, and protested against the House being swayed by the consideration of what might be expected to take place in the House of Commons, or by the dread of any effect which the proceeding might produce .out ,of doors. He defended his own conduct in the course of these proceedings from the aspersions of certain base and infamoiis indi viduals, who, not being able to imagine it possi ble for a,man to perform a just and honourable act, had attributed the most sordid motives to his Lordship. He had actually received, in con sequence of those, calumnious representations, a letter from a Professor, requesting to be appoint ed Body Physician to his Lordship on his voyage to the East Indies, where he was reported as about to be appointed Governor-General. Had the PhysiCian known as much of his constitution as his Lordship himself, he would never have hoped for the prolongation of his life till he could arrive there. . t\fter some further remarks, his Lordship declared that he shOuld, on the most conscientious motives, vote for the The Earl of ItosE tt auay rose to .offer a feW observations, rather from a wish to satisfy his own conscience, than from any presumption that he. could .throw any new light upen tire subject. Without arrogating to himself any peculiar*Aare of knowledge, he would say that none - of their Lordships could ,have watched the proceedings with more impartiality, or come to the question with less bias than he did. He felt that, if this Bill could be entertained at all, it must be upon the principle of public Wrong ; and he had de termined to vote for the Bill if the testimony had' been uncontradictory ; hut he saw so much' perjury and contradiction in the case, that there must be suspicions of improper practices, although he had no intention to attribute them to his Majesty's Ministers ; and with such a case he could not, with proper re gard to his conscience and honour, vote for the Bill. This was a Bill introduced with the plea of State expediency, but there was too much reason to suppose that expediency, as well as principle, was directed against it. He hoped their Lord ships would, notwithstanding all that had drop ped from the Noble Earl (Lauderdale) exclude from their consideration the probability of the other House of Parliament rejecting the mea sure, and it was the duty of their Lordships to look at the case in all its bearings. The inex pediency rose in strength as the evidence dimi nished in clearness. Disclaiming, therefore, po pular clamour and its influence, he was of opi nion that the sense of the important body of the community ought to be listened to and have its effect. In the spirit of discretion, therefore, he • . • implored their Lordships to act on this benevo lent principle, and to allow what was doubtful in the evidence to plead for the accused. He considered justice and expediency to - be alike against 'passing the Bill into a- law ; and a lt er th e most attentive consideration of the case he must . say Not Content. • Lord REDESDALE said, he had examined the depositibns, and•he,had no doubt that proof, in ' this case, Was full and absolute. having read the evidence from beginning to end, the impres- . sion on his mind was that•the case, notwithstand ing contradictory evidence, was as clearly proved,' as any case ever was in the Courts of Justice. His official experience had taught him to decide, in cases where there was contradiction or'doubt,. upon - the unquestionable facts. That was the rule laid down. in the Courts, from the.earliest knowledge he had of the law. It was a rule, essentially necessary in the other country 'where his Lordship had officiated, .and in his opinion, peculiarly applicable to this case. The facts, stated in evidence with respect to the po !acre, were sufficiently established. If so, it was for their Lordships to consider what, com plexion that feature of the case would give to the whole. When his Lordship entered into the evi dence respecting the circumstances on board the polacre, he found the balance of credit in favour of Majocci and Dumont. .The eVidence of both those witnesses was contradictory, but although he could not,:in all points, give them implicit con fidence,he was not justified in rejecting their evi dence altoo-etb6r. There was contradiction in the evidence of Lieut. Flynn. In- some parts of his eviden ce, the House could not believe him, because if that witness' did not speakabsolute and delibe rate falsehood, it was something untrue ; at the same time he could not reject. the whole of Lieut. Flynn's testimony. Some allowance, therefore, ought to be given for the hurried manner in which questions. were answered and taken down by the short-hand writer. Their Lordships could not avoid seeing palpable mistakeS in the answers of the witnesses ; but looking at the whole evidence from. beginning' to end, his Lord ship believed Maj o cci entitled to credit on the generality of his deposition. The House ought to have good ground for saying' they could not believe him. He had been cross-examined, and in his answers had told the whole story re specting i conversation -he had with Camera about a certificate of character. Was' that true or false ? If false, it might have been disproved by _Camera ; but that person was not called. Upon the whole, the contradiction found in parts - of Majocci's testimony could sot invalidate facts, which must be taken to be unquestionable. With respect to all the evidence, the Noble and Learned Lord admitted there was in many instances some appearance of inconsistency and the want of pro priety. Some parts might be true or not, but what was to become of the general interests of man-, kind, if every witness was to be rejected on the ground of inconsistency in parts of his evidence ? Doubtful evidence could , 'lever overturn that which was true: The House were to try - the evidence of Louisa Dumont, of whom so much had been said, by the test of circumstances which were unquestionably . true. What was the';evi deuce given respecting the bath ? Upon the depositions . of Captain Garguilo, Dumont, and Majocci, could there be any doubt whether there was a bath on board ? The qUestion then was,, whether it stood in the sleeping cabin or the din ing cabin ? In whatever situation the bath was placed, it was clearly established that the Prin cess, when . she used it, was attended by . Bergami. According to the evidence of Garguilo, Dumont, and Majocci, Bergami came out of the bath, and called upon them to assist the Princess. - It - was clear that no female was with, the Princess and therefore he considered the testimony of - Majocci not only uncontradicted, but proved. That fact alone was sufficient .to . lead their Lordships to art inference of guilt; for what woman, that had not sacrified her virtue to a man, could endure that matt in her bath ? This circumstance, with others, made an impression on his mind which induced. him to give credit to the-general evidence given by Dumont and Majocci. What difficulty could. there have been in disproving the facts to which he alluded ? They might-have had plans of the places, and if any female was with the Prin cess, why was she not called to their Lordships' bar ? If no evidence of that sort was brought forward, he was obliged to believe the story of Dumont and Majocci. It would be running wide from common sense not to believe thew antLde stroying all security to he derived from evidence. He could draw no other conclusion than that drawn by the Noble and Learned Lord. The form of proceeding• had been objected to, but be thought it was necessary this measure should be adopted. Bills of Pains and Penalties could not be objectionable in a constitutional point of view. They- .might be -said to protect the right of succession. The first act of settlement excluded all persons :from the succession who professed the Roman Catholic religion. Was' not that' in its operation a Bill of Pains and Penalties ?' now could it be Said that a Bill of Painsfand Penalties was unconstitutional, when the great institution of British Government depended on Bills of Pains and Penalties?' Were'the persons who passed the. Act of Settlement unconstitu tional men ? - Those Bills were absolutely neces sary in some cases, but then it was said they were not to be resorted to unless in cases of great ne cessity. Without Bills of * Pains and Penalties, the State could not exist. Divorce Bills were Bills of Pains and Penalties; indeed, any mea sure which went to affect the interest of an indi vidual might be considered a Bill of Pains and Penalties; but with regard to the measure be fore the House, the operation differed from the Divorce proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courd, which could go no further than separation a mensa et. thoro, but a divorce by Act of Parliament dissolved the marriage. It was some thing superadded to the decision of the Eccle siastical Court. In that respect it was different from the common and ordinary proceeding for divorce, but the House. ought to consider what would be the consequence if any other course than the Bill before them was adopted. In rase they proceeded' by impeachment, . her Ma jesty would have a. right to demand all the state and dignity of Queen. Could it be resorted to without the ceremony of crowning took place ? • Before the highest dignities were conferred, Par liament was bound to inquire whether the Illus ttroiof uo forfeit f e P i etrsarl right had gh not o s t o h r s e d c i o a n n d i t u y c t e a ti n d h esrtsaet e as of Queen Consort of these realms., She was a pub lic and political character, and therefore he con ceived that a legislative measure was necessary to bring on the inquiry to whiCh he alluded. it i N na ti a p s e s a a c l i d im Ot enotufgoit rlhtioghhatvreeabsoene.n fprsooc,eeitditolgogbhyt also to have been an offence liable to indict ment, for if it were net indictable they could . have no impeachment. If there was no pro , ceeding by indictment, then the only course of , proceeding, was by Bill. That proceeding the