The Sun. — London, England, 1820-10-25 00:00:00

of the Bill. Yott know, my Lords-, -that when the Bill was brought in, we were left totally in the dark as to the places where, and the time when, this adulterous intercourse took place, and I had no other guide but the Attorney-GetteraVs Opening speech, for the specification of the charges, for it was impossible I could learn any from the Bill itself. I shall now; there fore, my Lords, apply my'arguments and obser vations.to that- speech, and I shall compare the evidence offered at your Lordships' Bar with that statement, and show how far it has been proved or disproved. The first Count, my Lords, or rather the first overt act of high treason, set forth in the Preanible, is that of adulterous intercourse. Iu .the opening, the Attorney-General entered into a series of charges, applying epithets to her Majesty and to her servants, likely to affect and make a very -strong impression upon the minds of your Lordships. And what was his undisguised statement of her Majesty's conduct on the first night that she arrived at Naples ? He said that on that night he should prove, to the satisfaction of the minds of your Lordships, that adultery had been committed by hp- Majesty with Bergami. I will give you his own statement. "‘ On that night," said the Attorney-General, " her Majesty ordered her paramour to sleep in a room ,adjoining to her own, that she might have easy - access to him, lie hav ing-up to that time always slept at a distance, from her. William Austin, a child about seven years of age, who till that night slept in her Ma jesty's apartment, was removed to another room to sleep, to enable them to carry on the adulter ous intercourse now the subject of these proceed ings. Her Majesty returned early that night from the Opera, and was seen going to the room of Bergami, and she was noticed by her feMale attendant (Dumont) to be extremely agitated, and next morning it was observed that the bed of her Royal Highness had not been slept in." This was not all ; he further said—" And her Majesty next morning did not leave her apart ments till it was very late, but was shut up with Bergami in the cabinet; and although persons of rank called upon her, yet they were turned away without seeing her; they were-refused admittance to her presence." This was the statement the . Attorney-General ventured to make, and he add ed to it this also—" Now, my Lords, if such are the facts which I shall prove in evidence, and 1 have. no doubt but I shall, I say, my Lords, if I prove these charges in evidence, there is only.one conclusion to be drawn, and that is, that on that night an adulterous iatercourse took place." Your Lordships will see presently how these charges have been proved, or rather disproved. If these facts had occurred—if Bergami had been permitted to enjoy the unlawful embraces of his Royal Mistress, would, my Lords, his beha viour have been what it , has been proved to be afterwards towards her Majesty ?—The Gentle men who have been examined on the part of the Queen, Sir W. Gell and the- Honourable Keppel Craven, have both sworn that his behaviour was becoming the situation he tilled ; that he was re spectful to her Majesty, and that his demeanor was as proper as it could possibly be. If this per son had done that which was charged, would not he have been fotward, impudent, and fa miliar ? His behaviour to her Majesty alone, gave the lie to the. foul charges. But, my Lords, if I shall show that it has been proved, that instead of her li:oyal.Highness ordering Bergami's bed -room to be. next to her's, that the arrangement of the rooms was made by the steward, Sicard ; and that the alteration was afterwards made in consequence of the great inconvenience to the suite, the house being too small ; and that Bergami was plated near the window leading into the garden, on account of hec- Majesty entertaining apprehensions of danger, and for the purpose of protecting her ; if it is proved that the boy was not removed to allow the criminal indulgence charged in the Bill, but that he was removed in consequence of his age, which Was fourteen. years, and not seven, as the Attor ney'-General said, and that her Majesty had been remonstrated with on account of his sleeping in her room, and that before her Majesty's arrival at Naples he had slept_ in another apartment whenever there was room for MM. If it be also proved, that instead of her Majesty returning early froth the Opera that she returned very late, and that Sir W. Gell accompanied her to her hest-room; and if there is no proof of Bergami being shut up with her Majesty next morning, cm ...Altai. he was in the same room dining the night ; if it is proved that no 'persons of rank visited her Mijesty next morning who were kept Waiting . , and refused admisSion to her presence—then, ask your Lord Ships, where are the proofs of cri rniMil intercourse ? I ask your Lordships to dis miss the evidence of Dumont altogether. I ask you* Lordships, when you find all her evidence, which is known to other persons, completely dis proi,ed, to refuse to give any credit to assertions, which rest solely on her oath, and ate not con firmed-by the testimony of others; for it is im possible I can bring evidence to. show the false hood of charges which she saYs occurred when no other person was present. Dumont said that her Majesty, on her return from the. Opera, was agitated ; it was what any person, might have said t without fear of contradiction ; but the in ference to be drawn was, that her Majesty was so in love with her courier that she returned early from the Opera to gratify a criminal passion that night. My Lords, it is my inten tionto refer to the evidence and statement of the Attorney-deneral, distinctly, and point by point, and I shall think it a favour if any of your Lordships, if I should pass over any f ac t without explaining it; that you would call back my attention to that part. Of course my colleagues will render me assistance, but this is a case of too much importance to allow. one single point to go unexplained. I shall now attempt to shew how false, how incredible, how unworthy of be, lief are the facts charged to have occurred on the night of the Opera at Naples. ,But, first, I call Your Lordships' attention to the evidence of Si card. lie proves that the alteration in the rooms eras done by his sole direction. Mr.CraVe - n states in his evidence, in pages 537 and 543, that Austin was removed from her Majesty's apartments -be- fore she . arrlvta pct N'apies: In pages Pi and 1 551, Sir W. Gell states that he did not return from the Opera till one o'clock in the m ornin,s and he saw, her Majesty to her chamber and' Dumont says in her evidence that it was early when she returned from the Opera, not ,more than eight o'clock. There is, my Lords, no prof "sAltateVerOf Bergami being l oc ked up next-morn ing with her Majesty or of his breakfasting with her. There is •no proof of any a dulterous inter conrse having. taken place on that night, but the contrary was most clearly established.. With re , speet to the alleged instdeuce of Bergami, your, Lordships Will find that that is completely ne gatived in the evidence. What does Mr. Craven say id his eviden ce ? was asked by a Peer" Were the manners of Ber gami the manners of a Gentleman :" Ills answer was---" When he - was a courier he act ed becoming his situation -; and when he was chamberlain he acted as properly in that ca pacity." As to the state of the beds, which has been dwelt upon so much hp the other side,— In page 253, Dumont says, 46 that no person slept in the travelling bed, but the great bed, en the following morning, was rumpled." Now, my Lords, it is curious to know, and I should like for Dumont to state, where her Majesty slept, for the great bed had no sheets upon it, and it could - not be supposed that her Majesty slept all night outside the counterpane, and the travelling bed was not slept on at all, My Lords, when Du mont states, that for two months the little bed was not slept upon at all, it is so incredible that I am sure your Lordships cannot give credit to it -; for her Majesty must have, slept in a bed some where ; and if she slept in Bergami's bed ail that time,, is it likely, I ask, that a female wotild be so foolish to let her chamber-maid know it ; for what more could Dumont know unless she had been present at, the. time she was in bed with Ber gami, .When her Majesty suffered her bed to be unruffled for two months together, and for no other purpose but to shew her guilt to her cham bermaid ? Therefore, upon probabilities, that fact must be false. .And as she has been contra dicted by other witnesses in other - facts, and contradicted by the nature of . . this, it is im possible she can have spoken truth. But still further, in page 336, when my Learned Friend, Mr. Williams, with that ability which be has manifested ,pressed her farther on the same subject, she said there was nothing in the bed which indi- Cated . any impropriety having taken place. Thus,in the first instance, she says nothing - of any mark of a sexal intercourse having been had. 'And it is ludicrous to hear the attempt which my Learned Friends, considering their talent and the rank they hold, make to excuse this extraordinary circutn stance. On the third or fourth -day 'of the exa mination, when the Noble Lord puts her the ques tion on this subject, she then, for the first having had leisure and opportunity to prepare herself, and reflecting on the glory acquired by that modest piece of purity, Kress, by the va luable testimony she • had given, br perhaps, stun. by the treatment on the cross-examination, she then, I say, for the first time, introduces the stains in the bed: Now, my Lords, I am con vinced that you cannot possibly believe her evi dence ---why did not she state this fac t on the first day ? y But do notlet me forget, my Lords, that when she saw the spots on the counterpane, that, to show her modesty and ignorance of such matters, she added, that she did not know what the spots were ? - This is the first time she thinks proper to tax her Royal Mistress with a crime which she never committed ; I - repeat, my Lords, that in page 36'2 you will find her first attempt to prove this circumstance. But supposing her to have sworn it at once ; still, when a witness de poses to a number of other facts, in which she has been contradicted by other witnesses, it is impos sible to give her credit for any. My Lords, there never was a case in any Court of Justice, of which the evidence produced to support the opening so completely failed, or which was so satisfactorily disproved by the evidence for the , defence. But let us consider the effect which I must be produced by this proceeding. The 1 nature of the ; charges—the numerous facts under taken to be proved by my Learned Friends — the number of witnesses •brought forward—all these things have produced an impression, which it is impossible not to discover, upon your Lord ships' minds. My Lords, in a ptiblication to which Hately referred by accident (the Quar terly Review), I find this valuable observation the writer says—" 1 t requires more time and force to defend innocence than to calumniate it successfully ; and that nothing short of a miracle could prevent it from leaving traces behind." Never was the proverb " cahunniando semper aliquid - eral" more truly exemplified than in the present instance. The infamous - and unfounded calumnies against the honour of the Queen had their effect ; and although they had been most completely and satisfactorily disproved, yet would they leave a degree of punishment, of suffering behind, which no time will be able to efface. I will now, my Lords, call your attention to the case at Naples, which is the root of all the evil which has occurred. It is thus stated in the sum ming-up She retired with Bergami into the cabinet, and they remained' there an hour and a half." Of this , my Lords, there is no pro of ; y et in the summing-up, my Learned Friend says, " No man can entertain a doubt of the crime of adultery having been committed there." Now, my Lords, although this story has been most com pletely refuted, still it is evident an impression was made by it upon your Lordships' mind's ; and when I see your Lordships' minds still lin gering upon this•first impression, I feel with - hor ror the effect of the story,'w hich I flatter my is not believed by any one of your Lordships. — I come next to what I call the second count of those charges, namely, what occur red a t the masked ball. —=cc Her Royal Iligheess," says my Learned Frie nd, 46 re tiredwith Bergami to a room, where they re tnained three quarters of an hour, keeping her Maid in the anti-room Blithe time ; she then as sumed a Turkish dress which was most im modest, and Bergami did the same. ne, how- ever, appeared mortified and went "away, she having entreated of him in vain to remain, and her Royal Highness returned front the ball alone." Was ever any thing more completely disproved ? If she wished to accomplish the crime which he. imputes to her, would she tatko er maid vqtli s he...r toithe anti-room, and keeping h Itge retire With Bergami for a sinistef parpoSergut here again We cannot prove she did not go up to the room, because Dumont swears there was ,no - person pre - sent but herself; and yet we are asked, " Why don't you state facts to contradict this." Nothing can be more unreasonable. They bring forward a witness who places herself in a situa tion which afterds•ber an uncoutrouled dominion over the facts ; and are we to .ask her to swear to more? I•recolleCt once having a dispute with a Gentleman about an anecdote. I said. I had as correct a knoWledge of it . as he, for I had it from another Gentleman. He replied, that that Gentleman had it from himself .; but it Ulti mately turned out that he was himself the framer of it. It is , so with Dumont; she is .theframer of this detestable story ; and the More we would have asked her, tile More false facts would she have - heaped upon us. Sir \Valiant Gell, how ever, proves it to be false, for he swears she did 'not quit the ball until she. retired for_good . ; and it • is impossible she could have been absent for three quarters of an hour, and not be missed. pag - es 556• and 562, Mr. craven and Sir . Wm. Gell swear that so far from her dress being im modest, -- it was perfectly the contrary ; and in page 571, it is sworn, that all the other domes tics, as Nvell as erganii, formed a group in the same dress ai Mr. Craven's servant proves that Bergami was walking about the rest of the evening :;serving refreshments. Then, as the last resources it was attempted to show that she • was .improperly. attired in a pair of But Sir \Valiant Gell. swears that wits •a petticoat, with. a thread drawn. .trough the Middle, and that there was no impropriety in it whatever. Another charge is, that her Royal Highness was seen walking in the garden with Bergami. Majocci (page 7) at tempts to prove this, by swearing that .the key of the garden was kept by Bergami, and Dumont (page '275) says—" I saw them once walking together, and she was tin d e r his ann." Now, the powerful artifice of Dumont has been to en graft • her falsehood on a little truth. It was Dumont that placed them arm-in-arm in the gar den. It_was•a fact that they were in the garden, because there were Italian workmen there, to whom bar Royal HighnesS could not:communi cate her wishes, not being sufficiently acquainted with the Italian - language, and on that account she had a person with. her who could give her directions to the workmen. Mr: Craven. and Sir W,Gell have stated in their evidence, that her Royal Highness was at that time surrounded by spiesy . as Will be found in pages 540 and 562 of the printed minutes: Sir W. Gell also proves the important fact, that the place in which her Royal Highness walked was exposed to the view of the, whole house, and thus those two lovers, who were said to have sought a shady re treat for the enjoyment of their wishes, turned . out to be a Lady, with her servant behind her, giving directions 'to the workmen in her garden, from a terrace open to the world. And yet this was only one instance of the inventive powers of an artful chambermaid,. for the destruction of her mistress, and which it would be his duty to expose to the Rouse. The Attorney-General, in stating his case, had assured their Lordships, that he had no feelings to gratify in supporting the present Bill—that he could have no interest in its- fate—that he . merely appeared by their Lordships' orders at that Bar, for the purposes of substantial justice. But it so happened . after wards, notwithstanding these protestations, that the Learned Counsel opposite employed all the manageeent, .and art, and dexterity which it was potsible to • put in requisition to carry the Bill. There was more dexterity and ingenuity found in this case than the most pitiful at torney, whose existence depended on the pay ment . of his bill of costs, could expect or obtain from any Counsel in an action of ,da mages for assault and battery. But to him . , I do not impute, blame. If the case be bad, he must act so. It is his employers I blame, and those false, perjured witnesses who have deceived his employers. He begged pardon, however, of the Solicitor-General, •for he proceeded on ,a very different footing from the Learned Attorney- General. He did not consider himself as an ad vocate, but as a judge, in this case, and addressed their Lordships as a judge would address a Jury, directing them what verdict they were to,find.— " We think it our duty," said the Learned Gen tleman, (the Solicitor-General) " to lay before you all the.evidence which can bear on either side of the case ; for we are not parties, but im partial judges." They were thus, continued Mr. - Denman, placed in a perplexing situation, for they were. alternately' dealing with advocates and umpires. He did not know whether such would appear to . be the case from the evi dence, but he was sometimes at a loss to know which sort of persons he was opposed to on Mon days, Wednesdays, and Fridays ; and which on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Let this be as it would, the Solicitor-General, in summing up, hurled every species of defiance at him and his colleagues, to contradict the evidence for the Bill, and then. offered up his sincere wishes that her Majesty might be able fully to establish her innocence. This itself was some consolation, fof he believed it was the first prayer that was offered for her Majesty by any officer under the Crown, and he hailed it as an omen that ere long her Majesty's name would be . restored to that place in the offices of the Church, from which it had been so cruelly removed. Af ter this lie believed he was fully justified in congratulating the Solicitor-General that the evidence for the • Bill had totally failed. As to Dumont, he would put her entirely out of the -question, and consider the case as if her testimony had never been adduced.—The third point to which lie would direct their Lord ships' attention was not stated in the opening of rowsers. his Learned Prietid opptisite, but was throl.llo into the mart afterwards by Dumont, and. t Worked into the Solicitor-General's slimitu-rs up. At page , 25,1 of tbAtnutes it is stated the,i, that she saw Bergami c g ouf,isd„his own re' t , after she had -left her Royal liiiiiness's aP, r ,,, • and that Bergamilit4}.gooinia-towaridAs the Princess's roorii. , ---[llere' . Denman rea•,' ,t evidence from, the minutes.] —In her crosS-°11; amination afterwards by "Mr. Williams it Z r , `drawn out of her that, in escaping from m` to , gami, as she called it, she actually wen t wards him. - As the case stands on dence, there was as muc h to p rove adne-0 b e tween Dumont and Bergam i, as betvieeo Bergami and aity one else: The word " esctis3,eas gave a colour even to the supposition. he to be called on after a la p se of Si% 11t, to prove where Bergami slept on some 1 1 %. i n ot even specified—or because it Was 5 .. " 0 that Bergami's bed on a p articular occasion in a certain state, did it fol low that Berginuisle,Fil in her Royal Highness's r oom, and n ot la 3 1, : i other room on that night ? Let it firs t be.Pll3:;iti that he slept iu her Royal H i g hness's rooru, "uo then the appearance of his bed may be of s c el ia .value as a corroboratory circumstance. Il e t he net: however, intend to dwell on this part of , v 5 evidence at present, but to di rect their Lordsb:lis to that which wotild be found at page 13 360 on the same subject. Would, there be found t lt ije r Solicitor-General, on the std of September7l,;c ll re-examination, put a ques tion to Dumont, °' no man would have attempted to put to an': of ness, in her circumstances, in any Justice. A. Counsel has no right WI a re-e 3 O - co nation to question a witneSs,unless wi th refer the to something which has been elicited ° ll , t bii cross-examination, The Solicitor-General se` c ot rule' at uoug,ht ; and without once observing .it-/?,ei Dumont to say that when she left the Prl nce :a 4 room her door Was locked ; although there - t ot nothing which could warrant it in the ren ju ip . Y way, this question appeared in the cross-exand' tion ; by this means that which vas susi'i c ) i e against Dumont became suspicious aga-ju s i t, ds ,Royal Highness; bttt had her Majesty 7 s.';,o: sel not been taken by surprize, such evl'c' :should never have been suffered to aPP c3. fte .the minutes.. Was it to be endured, that 3 1 „: two dayi tamed it waa found a i t ' had in that failed to establish grouad f°'. s ol desired inference, that then the required al.,:.bir was to be regularly obtained? Their 1-•°'%oP -would know what value evidence o f thi t o , Was entitled to. lie next adverted to tl' ° i S other occasions when adulterous intercourse if, on the authority of that precious witness jocci, imputed to her. Majesty. Bergami t. l)ut that, it would seem, was 110 obSOCIIi‘ the enjoyment of such a passion as that r i possessed this guilty pair. The re was a P do t ' passage by which the Princess might lace into his roOtn unobserved by ally one, but ' 9 ),er of choosing that, she goes throg uh the rooin 1' - the servant of the sick man is watchigos.e where a tire is constantly bur nin g . She dc'e.:eof steal through this room but twice—not one night, but twice-on two different She does so, too, being a person who is 01)5e.re the utmost caution in the indulgenc e of 11c. minal passion. Anxious to avoid every el y '(e' 11 prefers that passage which is m ost certain 'ea,' posing her to_ the o bs erv ation of a persoo i''.'', hired into her service, and who , for any t.‘:)! knew, might immediately aly publish her sh ? ,c world! How was he to comment on such a this ? What security was there. for human such evidence was to be seriou sl y entertai'''i a single moment ? The Attorney-Geuer`„l.o', in his opening case, been p leased to ernbe l t ee t part of the story, by averring, that af.t,,,)o' Princess went into Berammi's room, heard kisses. But what did Majocci S'-114 his evidence ? He says he heard not f a il whispering. The Attorney-General, b°l doubt shaped his averments according ° i n ' s , ' structions, but the witness had not b ee'' , ciently tutored so to shape his evideue," make the averment and proof correspoi„,ll';per f disagreement between the Attorney'', opening of Majocci's evidence and the e 0 11 itself, was not more remarkable than th e A d diction which existed between the ec i " be li c Majocci and that of other individuals, `ci.,tui other individuals could be called to sPe II OY circumstances to which he deposed• swears, that - ou one occasion, when Pr . was dressing the foot of Bergami, thei, was present; but Dr. Holland, when as'etbsi; this incident, declares most e xpressly , 3" Royal Highness never was p resent on 01 occasion. Why had not the Origina" rs i , $ 54 , prosecution applied to Dr. llolland , taro whether he confirmed the sintell I s tte °j Majocci, as to this point ? When t''repti' mends of a person of such detestable aae, tion, could, if true, be confirmed detestable person, why, then, was not that pers ° " l ,idAl Why, then, was not all the evidence sv „" open to them, had recourse to, after fir t , taking came under consideration--firs;'e P;" King's Ministers . ; and, secondly, by t ' t ' s s' l l ,) Agents, to call all who were Witnesses 4ifrigr the imputed circumstances of crinsinalite regard to the way in which their-evi cl _ t eli ss a ci probably tend ?—Why had they 01',004,1, course to the best, rather than to the s A ' c aloi dence-they could procure ? Who soul" on Dr. Holland, in point of respectabiliti).%pi a man as Majocci ? and yet true it Vi iis i 7 DAY, Holland, who could best tel the. tin t l to, been called upon by those who prore s ' e 't nothin at heart but the developenlean to e ,f l i truth ? ~ The same observation aPPlie.,tetco, one of the witnesses. if the adulterous 'L t d, i s,• imputed to her Majesty had really o f s .l ' usei could have • had better opportunities : 9 it than her Ladies, of Honour ? pf e , o f'i be told that motives of confidence nug,kprilotl them from revealing what they knew' i t i e,',l , ! t ' by the .King to attend on her MajestPcotila in a sort of public function, and tlieY 10/ f t el o ft no duty more imperious than that o truth in all that regarded her AlajestY °li e l lis to ti tal