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

toss Oldi called ? Then; my Lords, as to the cha racter, the merits, and the qualifications of the -person raised to such pre-eminence and conside ration, how are we to account for such an extra - erdinary promoticin ? 'There is a great difference between the case of a person promoted after a life rent in labour, in fidelity, and in the meritorious discharge of important services, either in the church, at the bar, or in the army, and the case under consideration.. It is one Of the great bless ings of the Constitution tinder which we live, that the highest situationsin the country are accessible to those v hose merits, and whose talents, render them worthy of pre-eminence. But that view of the subject is wholly inapplicable to the case of the individual alluded to—who has not only.him self been raised to this high distinction, but every member of whose family, with one exception only, has shared in the prosperity which has at tended him. Look, my Lords, to the evidence of 'Mr. Craven, ' Sir W. (4.11, and Sicard. Sicar4 who gave his testimony in a manner, which I think did hid) great credit, states to your Lordships the manner in which this man entered her Majesty's seri ice, and . the .nature of the advantages he was tanelit to expect. Ile told your Lordships that g.arni was engaged as a cou r i er , t o .go merely to Naples, with a promise of recommendation,' if his conduct was approved," but nothing more. Mr. - . Craven's evidence upon this point was, that Ber lgarni was told he might hope to be promoted, and Sir 'William dell, that he might hope to be gra , dually advanced. But, my Lords, was this all that happened to this man—did he remain in that state of humble hope and expectation ? I • ask your Lord Ships whether in the world there was ever such an instance of promOtion as this case pre sents,—where the whole family of this man, with one exception;and that his wife, is raised to dis tinction and affluence? The conclusion to be draws from Such a state of things, I leave your Lordships to judge. You find from the pro • ceedings in support of 'the Bill, that there are eight or nine witnesses, every one of whom, with reference to the facts to which they de posed, remains Uncontradicted ; and there is no impeachment of their general chara c t er , or th e i r particular conduct, unless you act upon bare sus picion, suggested in' argument and observation. There appearS, 'however, in point of evidence, no ground upon which you can safely act in say ing, that they are not to be believed. Why, then these witnesses Speak to acts of familiarity, which undoubtedly in many instances may exist, with out any act of adultery having been committed, but which, when coupled with the opportunities afforded for the commission of the act, from the contiguity of bed rooms and other circumstances, are.Stichas must 'lead the mind of every man of plain sense and common understanding, to the irresistible conclusion, thaf'a criminal intercourse had taken place. This inference must always be drawn under such circumstances as have been proved in evidence. But, my Lords, I wish to know why is not Bergami himself produced ? It is said, he cannot be, produced. That I deny. I say he might be produced ; and in the case that has been alluded to in the course of this inquiry, if _ ) I.V_LOrd S. NMI ravear, where the adulterers themselves have been called to prove the adultery. Then, I ask you, what are you not to infer, not only from the absence of every member of this family, and of all other witnesses, to prove innocence, but from the absence of a man who, if he were innocent, has imposed upon him an obligation to which no individual was ever before subjected —an obligation imposed upon him by all the mighty favours he has received— by all the 'circumstances of benefit he has en joyed —an obligation, of.a nature the most trans cendent, to come before your Lordships, as a witness on behalf of..his Illustrious Mistress ? If then he might come—and if he has this powerful obligation pressing u'pon him to come—l ask, why he did not come ? There are many 'circumstances in the case to which I have not alluded, and to which I do not mean to allude, because, if youare not satisfied by those leading points to which I have referred, I do not hesitate to say that you ought not, to pass the Bill. j I say nothing of Sinigaglia, for though 1 cannot reconcile all the testimony of Sacchi with that of Carlo Forti and Vassali, still I cannot conclude that it was false, and therefore dis miss it altogether from. my consideration. So also with respect to Trieste, the facts connected with which were capable of being contradicted, though they werenot met by contradiction. But when I see a person called to speak to facts, 'and when I hear him distribute those facts through the space of six days, which must seem to have taken place according to other statements, in a day and a half, I cannot come to any conclusion upon his 'evidence. You have also before you Barbara Kress, a:witness who, as far as her man ner goes, appears to be entitled to credit; she speaks positively as to what passed on the second day of their arrival" at Carlsruhe; and has not been contradicted, except you look to what Vas sali has said at the close 'of the case, when lie winds up with an account of what passed in the saloon. That witness is liable to the same obser vation . Which I have made upon others, his me mory being. so - accurate as to what passed there, . but scarcely extending to any thing else. In this view of the case, taking the depositions of all the witnesses together, referring to the extraordinary and rapid ,promotion of Bergami and his family, the whole of whom he brought round tier Royal Highness, with the exception of his wife, look, ing to what passed in the polacca and at other places, I should ,feel that I was not • doing my duty if I refrained from stating my belief that an adulterous intercourse has taken place. The principle on which I proceed, and by which, as it appears to me, your Lordships are bound to be governed, is this—to infer from all the circum stances what any reasonable man would infer, though the fact itself could 'not be proved. 'Whe ther your Lordships determine that the case has been made out or not, my belief is as I have stated. One word more and I have done. As to what has passed out of doors I shall take no notice of it, because I cannot be supposed here to. be aware of such proceedings ; but this I will say, that let what may or will happen, I xnust do my duty. Your Lordships have heard at your Bar in the progress of this inquiry what I was sorry to hear, and what I never before heard from any Counsel ; I allude to the intima tion that if you determined to pass this Bill it would be the last you would ever pass. Ido not profess to use the precise words ,ef the spea ker, but the impression is distinct upon my mind that they sounded something like a threat.— (Hear, ear from the Ministerial side.)—What ever the duty of an Advocate may be, I certai" 1 v never conceived or heard before, that it called for, or could justify an address of this nature, and whether the opinion so stated be right or wrong, I am bound to say that it ought to have no effect upotl your Lordships. You stand here as the acknowledged protectors of the lives, the liberties, the honour and the character of your fellow-subjects,and if I had not a moment longer to live,l would say in answer to such an appeal, "be hist, and fear not." I know this Country well enough to be convinced, that if you do your duty to the people by protecting their liberties and the Constitution which their ancestors have. handed down-to them, the time is not far distant when they will do their duty to you, when they will acknowledge that those who exercise the ju dicial functions are bound to brave all reproach, to court no popularity, but to proceed according to the dictates of their conscience, leaving all remote consequences to the justice and wisdom o: God, directing the feelings and sentiments of men. I have now stated what I shall do, accom panied by the reasons that have determined me ; it remains for your Lordships to adopt your own course upon the impressions you have taken from the evidence produced at your Bar. Lord ERSKINE commenced his speech, as far as we could collect from the low tone in which it was delivered at the outset, by expressing his dissent, with some qualification, from the con cluding observations of the Noble and .Learned Lord. If the House vas engaged in a judicial (Ines tion only, he would be willing to say along with him, "fiatjusticia ruat ccelum," for in a Court. of Justice the popularity of the question, the opinions of the people, and their impressions upon cases of the most material importance, ought not to he permitted to- operate against the sense of the tribunal. He felt that he could not proceed bet ter on the present occasion than by throwing open his breast and stating all that had occurred to'him from the commencement of this proceed ing. immediately, on the death of his late Ma jesty, and before it could have reached the ears of the Queen, an ace was done by his Majesty's Ministers which deprived her of the prayers of the Church. And yet his Noble and Learned Friend had contended that no person ought to be considered guilty until proved so; that the scales - of justice should be held even ; and that no opinion should be stated to the disadvantage of the accused, until the day of trial wits arrived. --(Hear, hear!)—He felt no hesitation in stating that when that act was done, whether Ministers were authorised or not by the law of the land in 4-ml,l - gating, SIT,A. an act of injustice, yet when it li was aone, e test assured that they must have been prepared with a case against the Queen which would not admit of being answered. He concluded that they had made every inquiry Abroad, not of those witnesses who bad since been thrown overboard, but of persons of fortune and respectability, to whose characters there could be no objection.' But to look to the pro ceedings of Parliatuent itself, he found that a par cel of papers sealed up had been laid on the Table of that House, containing the informa tion which formed the ground-work of the charge. lie found that papers were alSo laid before the other House, and he agreed with a Noble Friend behind him, in thinking that by the course then taken, they had disqualified themselves from sitting as Judges. His own opinion was, that the other House ouqht to have proceeded by impeachment, if the evidence was - capable of sustaining the charge. The answer given to that was, that adultery committed with a foreigner beyond seas, was not treason, and the Noble Earl (Liverpool) in arguing on the subject, had reminded him of the difficulties in which he was involved when he attempted to brine in a Bill making adultery a crime by the law. 'The Noble Earl had argued- that point with so much elo quence and ingenuity, that he (Lord Erskine) was tempted fora moment to suspect the validity of his own opinion. Subsequent inquiry, how ever, confirmed him in the judgment he had first formed, and he had since entered a Protest on their Lordships' Journals, asserting that the House of Commons had .the jurisdiction. Their Lordships knew that the Hotise of Commons had the power, but they also knew that they would not exercise it, and was that a fit foundation for a Bill of Pains and Penalties ? Was it proper that they should adopt such a proceeding because the House of Commons were Unwilling to proceed at all ? The House of Commons had passed a Resolution, in which those who repre sented the Government in that House acquiesced, stating, that the inquiry in w hi c h th ey were en gaged, was derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the people. In this, as he had already stated, his Ma jesty's Ministers had themselves concurred; how then, he would ask, when the Representatives of the people had done so, could they blame the people for making the same complaint ? When that Resolution had passed, strengthened by the "authority of Ministers, the House resolved to ad dress her Majesty with all the respect which was due to her high station. The Queen was ready to accept what the Commons had thus tendered to her. She was willing to enter into a negocia tiVl3-it tp:tohnveide, was herd the character was not compromised. duty of Ministers in thi s N state of things ? to have replaced her Majesty's name in the Liturgy, and thereby removed the only obstacle to an arrangement so desirable. He would ask their Lordships another question. Were they prepared to read the Bill a second time only, that thery might read it a third time and send it to the other House of Parliament ? Tv; o6, Rut could they do tbil'avith an:esepectation that the other House wou ld pass the Bill ? To agree to such a Bill after the Resolution they had come to, would be, to dishonour themselves, and he could not help confessing, that he was afraid of the consequences of such, a difference between the - two thares in thlkpresent - state the public Nu Ehe a e difse - iw ere 'the Representatives of the people, though by the language of many of the attacks upon that branch of the Legislature, that position was denied ; but no one could tell what the consequences might be if they were prevailed upon to retrace their steps and contradict their own proceedings'. But could their Lordships make such an attempt? Could they send down the Bill and ask them to re consider their Resolution with a view to their con currence in a measure they had already stigmatized. If they could undertake it and succeed in it, they would do an act fraught with the most injurious consequences to the Constitution of the country. The Bill of Pains and Penalties was now before them, but could it be said that the offence against which it was directed, supposing it could be proved, was not a high crime and misdemeanour ? If it was not, what was it? If, according to the language of the Bill, adultery had been publicly committed, an impeachment ought to have taken place, and if an impeachment could not have taken place, they ought not to have proceeded. Even if the preamble of the Bill.were proved—if be thought the Queen as guilty as he now believ ed-her innocent froth the evidence, still he never would have given, nor ought their Lordships to give, their support to a Bill 'of Pains and Penal ties, when a constitutional remedy was open to them. His life was now drawing near its close, and he might flatter hiMself, that if it had been useful in some respects to his country, as part of it had been employed to secure to the people their constitutional rights—if these labours were to be struck out of the history of his life, there would remain nothing to distinguish him from the most insignificant person in the community. He now opposed the Bill of Pains and Penalties in consistency with his former. opinions and his former conduct. He had often raised his voice in Court against such proceedings, as inconsistent with the spirit of English justice. It had been stated that the adulterous intercourse was the only matter on, which their Lordships were called upon to decide. That he would deny ; he would deny it standing before the country. The preamble of the Bill stated otherwise. His Lordship then quoted the following passage from the Bill And whereas her said Royal Highness, while the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartholomo Berga mi, was in her said service,further unmindful of her exalted rank and station, and -of her duty , to your Majesty, and wholly reg a r dl e ss o f h er own honour and character, conducted herself toward the said Bartolomo Bergami, and in other respects both in public and private in the various p4aces and countries which her Royal Highness visited, with indecent and offensive familiarity and freedom, and carried on a disgraceful, licentious, and adul terous intercoursd with the said Bartolomo Ter; gami, otherwise Bartolomo Bergaini, which coo tinned for a long period of time during her Royal highness's residence abroad." The de grading intercourse thus alluded to, as carried on in various parts of the world, in public as well as in private, was now after the evidence confined to the deck of a polacca at sea ; these acts, which were before described to have been so uumeroasond to have scandalized the name of her Royal Highness all over Europe, had now dwindled into the charge of sleeping upon deck under the same awning 'with-a man who was re quired to protect her. It had been proved by two witnesses, Gargiulo and Paturzo, upon look ing at whose evidence he thought their Lordships would not consider them as witnesses at all, but no evidence bad been, given to shew that any belief or suspicion of adultery had been felt by the per sons on board the vessel. But was Gargiulo a witness whose authority ou g ht t o weigh with their Lordships—was he a Viitness to be depend ed on who came over here to get his six thousand dollars in addition to his expenses ? Lieutenant Hownam, who had been questioned to the same fact, denied that he had ever suspected any thing, or thought there was any impropriety in sleeping under the tent with Bergami. o.n being asked if he had never suspected any thing—a question, the objection to which was over-ruled—his answer was, " No, I never felt so ; I never thought so." He did not object to the practice of examining witnesses before trial, especially in a case of great moment like the present, nor to the conduct of Mr. Cooke, but if, as he had said before, he were au angel instead of being an honest man, he would still ask, whether the case had been properly con ducted ? As. to the question, whether Rastelli should have been called back again, an important witness, such as he was, and under the circum stances that required it, hisanind could not admit of a doubt on the subject, and their Lordships had a right to enter into the fullest examination as to the manner in which the witnesses had been questioned before they came to this country. It was a singular circumstance, that after the vari ous acts of adultery were given up, as not proved, the Bill should be persevered in. Others might reconcile it to themselves, but if he were engaged in any case when all the witnesses called to prove it were given up, and the only hope that remained was to make out the case from the op posite party, nothing could induce him to go on after that moment. If the testimony of Dumont were worthy of credit, an act of adultery had been proved, according to all the rules of legal presump tion; and yet it was a remarkable circumstance, that though an act of adultery had been proved by this witness, no notice had been taken of that part of her testimony by his Noble and Learned Friend; nor had he appeared to consider this woman as a witness upon whom any dependence was to be plac ed for the truth of the facts. According to her own account, she had witnessed all these abomina-' tions, not merely the _sleeping under the tent of the polacre, but other distinct acts of adultery ; yet how did this testimony accord with the de clarations in her letter to her sister Mariett e ? In that lette r s h e conjured her sister to imitate her example, and never to think of marry'ing', " My mother and I," says she, " forbid long as her Royal Highness shall wish to you in her service. You calf lave up gre 3 ; happiness." Looking to the writtNt dalaraw, of titivvitutv., which were direcO, opPosil e :, .6. v ery Ming ;Ilk had iv\orn;. wasAllb liteissible hen. tetti4notil could le received in any. CO lll4 ' - justice ? The testimony of this witness ha- , 0 ceived a still m ore remar k a bl e contras he in the. evidence of M a d ame M ar ti n i ; and o d o she ; was -called back and examined with re rence to cetrtain conversatio n s - w hi c h sh e had ha t „, with that lady, she denied a ll reco ll ec ti o n o ldie; lie now came to the evidence as to what ec e d red on board th e polaccato the sleeping u ncl e the awning or tent ;—and here he would obser t %, that, if the evidenc e wen t t o s l ew an y instal' , of her Royal Highness passing from her royal e , the bed of Bergami, it would,.if on credita l ' o f testimony and unexplained, be presumptic' c a guilt; but the case was quite different on boa the polacre, and, of course, the same presume tion could not follow. When first the Par b ,,, wetjt on board, there was an arrangement of tu t, beds, which was, on all hands, considered ua ° , jectionable ; afterwards that was partially chal ed, in consequence of a surgeon coming on boli e The beds were at' this time below. New., o would ask their Lordship s , if a n adulter°ll, intercourse was- sought fer by her Royal gig o ness, would she not have c o nti nue d the b e w below, where i n t ercourse o f th a t descrie„f would be less open to observati on ? Instead u t this, what took place? Her Royal Highness we', on deck,, where her actions were no t only e`; posed to the observations of her attendants, b u t also to those of the whole ship's crew. The ° s opened on the d ec k ; an d, b es id es , th ere was a s opening from below, to which the suite had 0 .. : cess. But-it was said' that her Royal Highnert was attended by a male attendant. Good God ' was that circumstanc e t o b e t a k en as proof ° i adulterous ,intercourse ? What was to becol l '!„ of society, if a woman having a male a ttendow l was to be taken as a p roo f o f h er gu ilt? not a matter of every-day occurrence that werw' - , were attended in their r oom s by men , a nd a l5 men by women; but who ever i n f erre d gu ilt fr° ,,, I `i that circumstanc e ? T a ki ng th en , th e w hole e, what occurred on b oar d th e p o l acre — a nd t seemed that upon the tent-scene the whole Ca', Was rested—he contended that there was nothly: 4 in it which could support the statement of tl ' e preamble, that her Majesty's conduct was "-sca ll ; dalous, disgraceful, a nd v i c i ous ." if th e svh °i of her conduct were taken together, it did O amount to a proof of the preambl e ; b u t all r Majesty's acts, whether of private or publ ic ,' character, had been abandoned by his Noble a% Learned Friend, except those which took 0 0 a in the polacre. Tie Noble Lord next advert% to the evidence of Majocci, w hi c h h e s a id 10 - positively contradicted i n mos t -ma t er i a l parts; 3 4 he would spew, independently of his contradi v tions ofhimself. He was contradicted with re; spect to the ball and suppe r . Aft er h e d es cribe,' the Queen as having passed twice through roam towards that of Bergatni, he denied at fir': there was any o th er p assage b y w hi c h she mig ht have gone. Here his Lordship read some of the questions put to Majocci. [His Lordship was here proceeding to notice the ccintra‘l ic° tion given to this account, and to contrast Majocri's evidence with that given by Dr.. Holland, when his voice suddel ceased. The pause was not particularly noticed at first, a' appeared as if his Lordship were looking over the Mitiat`i plaCed o n th e table before hint ; but alter so m e time 1 0 elapsed, without resuming his speech. sonic of the Peers'lLe ; came alarmed, a nd rose f rom their seats to proceed t o ' A ' Lordship. The anxiety of the whol e H ouse was now a rousey' as the Noble Lord fell forward on the table iu a sen'f, less state. There were cries of " Open the windows; " Some water." The Lord Cliaticelloy and the Esti °, l Liverpool evinced the greatest concern, and procecd.e b immediately to Lord Erskine's assistance. :,j They, te' the as s i stance o f E ar l s G re y and Carnavroo, Lo Holland, and]hit. Baron Garrow, rais e d his Lau., ship ; but his speech and colour were gone. They then f'' carne seriously alarmed, alltl instantly proceeded to cool him out of the house. Tile attack was so severe that they 0 7' 1. 4 obliged literally to tarry his Lordship out of th e House, into an adjoinin g room, where medical aid was imtuediatn',; procured. It was at first supposed that his Lordship's ino!" position would be but temporary, and, in the expectation , he would be able to resume hiS speech, the House, on the We lion of Lord Lauderdale, adjourned for a quarter of au boor' After the lapse of nearly half an hour, Lord Erskine's ifidis: position bein g so severe as t o prevent h i s return, the WO" resumed.] The LORD CHANeELLOR said, that he had common with their Lordships to regret the 0) 6 sence of his Noble and Learned Friend, wha 9e indisposition had compelled him to quit his seat- But he could not pertnit this debate to go further without observing, that his Noble nd L e arned Friend mistook what he (the Lord Chancellor) meant, when he said that he had overlookedniani of the points in the case. What he meant to Pi was merely this—that in the points and £90 5 upon which he had' remarked, he saw enoagi: for his own judgment: as to the rest, he ha d left them unreasoned upon, and refrained friNs pronouncing any opinion with reference to ale** The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, lie never rase with more difficulty to address their LordshiPlP for he was weighed down with the importance of the case. He was sorry to put his opinion 13 competition with a man who had led thll lega l life of the Noble and Learned Lord (ErskimeN but this was a question to be determined on evi; deuce, and every man could judge for hilinsol' 4 ' It was well known that he was as ready as a nd man to attack his Majesty's present Government , but he would be ashamed of himself if he wv \6 ' 4 , to treat this as a party question=(Hear, hea r ' from the Ministerial side of the House)—lt 'A: 36 a question that he had come to the determina" ri to deal with conscientiously, and to do his hone st , duty between the pa r ti e s ; b u t b e f ore h e coul d do that, he must conscientiously inform th eir Lordships why he had come to the conclu sion that he had. In the speeches of hiS Noble and Learned Friends (the Lord Chan' cellor and Lord Erskine,) he had heard 0° difference of opinion as to the rule of evidence% or the doctrine of law which had been laid dow l} in the case of Lovedale v. Lovedale, as had been stated at their Lordships' liar. One of the lea f " ing circumstances in this case , an d f r om whi ch guilt was to be inferred' -was the relative situ 3" Lion of the rfarties; for here they appeared t° be tot, tery c , sider a i was c must s 411 Y In , 4 listo r , th ey th at it, fortu n it w b i , blot b Ilirn a cowri e 180 u. e yideji th at h teliti ol Sio' Sli that 13 tress's