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

who thought that any set of men, standing as they did, could have remained passive—he beg ged to pronounce no opinion on that point—it was one which was surrounded by a variety of conflicting difficulties. He also begged to say that in pronouncing upon the • inexpediency of this Bill, he was in no degree actuated' by any influence arising from threat or intimidation. fie had lived long enough to see how idle it was for any-man to forirehis judgment - upon any momen tary clamour or - temporary intimidation. He had too often seen the popular feelingS unnecessarily raised and quickly laid aside. II isvote was gronach ed upon the inexpediency and impolicy of the Bill. • The Earl of DoeieuonmonE said, he bad waited with proper attention to hear. the arguments of the Noble Earl who spoke last, and whose rank property,and character, justly entitled his opinion to the utmost respect. lie must say., however, that ,with great respect for that Noble. Earl, he was at a loss to see to what point his observe, tions tended. He had said nothing respecting theleomediate question before thp.House---ehe had not said one word, why ,the Bill should ;not be read a second time ; on, the contrary, his obser vation; that he etoold riot vier the („leleen being innocent, had rather an opposite teodency, and furnished a • reason why the Order •of the Day -,Mudd be agreed to. That ought, in lii hemble judgmeet, to have been . the sequel of what he (the Earl of liorewood) said.. The Noble Lord had said that be did not think the ilinetrions Inculpated Party perfectly innocent 6f the charges in the preamble of the Bill, and as he would• not vote for the gill, should have expected-him at least to propose something in it stead. But to his utter astoaishment, the Noble Lord would not vote for the second read , ir e ;, nor had he prtSposed to substitute any other measure for that now before them. The. whole of the argument of the Noble Lord amounted •to this, that the public mind was in a state of great irritation, and that he never knew the public to be wrong ill its judgment at last -e-therefore their Lordships were called - on to drop the Bill, aban don their dut H ear, hear!)-forego the measure, hec.ause a very respectable Noble Lord said that his experience taught him that, whether irtitated or not, the people al ways proved to be wise and jest at last. lie apprehended that the argument of the Noble Lard was a reason why . the Bill should be read a second time. Because the irritation of the peo ple's minds would only be increased by having caused its rejection. They would feel themselves strange hold forget who were the governors, and who the party governed. .He respected public opinion as much as any man, bUt he could .not think this was a. time to sacrifice to popular cla mour the dignity of Parliament. Before he en tered upon his reasons for the vote he should give, he thought it right to state to their Lordships on what part of the. evidence he founded that opi . nipn. ike sholld not c4l to his al d. in fern - lit:Fr his opi nion. the testimony of N1?-jocei, nor should he rely on that of Dumont, nor Would he take any ac count of that of the respectable Mr. Sacchi, nor listen fora moment to that of the execrable wit ness Cuchi, nor could 4e, -in forming his opinion, be at alt guided by the evidence of Kress, when he considered the manner in which she had been brought forward, and the iolluence by which the witness who could have contradicted her had-been prevented from coming. Having paid that- re epect which was due to the opinion of the Noble art (Earl Grosvenor) who-had talked of throw ing the liturgy in the King's .face ; and who, not content with the terrestrial sphere, had visited the celestial regions, and had explained to them the eclipse.—(A laugh:)---And it might be a serious matter to pursue him in his lofty speculations. At all events, if he (Loed Donceighmore) were about to ascend to the tipper. regions, he should beg leave to wait a little before he mounted, if the Noble Lord preceded him, in Aorder to give time for the cooling of the track followed by the . Noble Earl, in the inflammatory state of .mind and body, in whit he had.undertaken.his heavenly peregrinations. He had resolved to put out of his mind the testimony_ of all. the other witnesses, although the Counsel on one side de clared that those witnesses were the very best possible , witnesses ; • an assertion. which met with the , professional contradiction that might have been expected from the Counsel upon the oppo pite- side, The Noble Lind (Dononghmore) - here expressed his admiration of his Noble Friend's (Lard Lauderdale), able 'and lucid speech. upon this question, and said, that in most of the positions laid down in that speech he fully agreed, • The favourite ofthe illustriousA.ccused had been, indeed, highly honoured. Titles had been procured for him, and he was in the enjoy ment of an estate. There were some little inter mediate things which were deserving of,notice— sortie little familiarities, which- would be, indeed, updeserving of notice, if not-coupled. with some facts of irresistible force. The.. taking of the chain from the,Queen's neck, and placing it on Bergami's ; the gift of the portrait ; those were things 1-fliich, though far from being conclusive in themselves, greatly . added to the suspicion of guilt when placed in juxtaposition to the more formidable, proofs of guilt. . Now, if two persons, a male and female, of whom no suspicion had been previously entertained, had happened to sleep under the same tent, owing to circum stances of an extraordina.iy kind, he .should, in deed, be extremely sorry to say that he enter tained a Worse opinion of the character of the female than he had before entertainel ; but, when , he considered that all. the former evi dences of a criminal intercourse were to be put in addition to the fact which had been proved beyond all doubt—that Bergami and her Royal Highness had., for five we ‘lis, slept under the same awning, day and night, it was impossible to draw any' inference but that of guilt. He could not see bow it was possible to pronounce any other verdict, after proof of con . etant cohabitation fmetive weeks under the awn ing.. The Noble .Lord here proceeded to read the. minutes of evidence of the Captain and Mate' of the polacre as to the station of her Royal Aighness -.and Bergami on t'he gun, on the b'el, under the awning, and the disgustina ' ties that took place between thent This was, his Lordship 'said-, a complete answer to the ques tion which had been asked on the other side, whether it was poSsible that adultery could have beett`'committed on board the polacre the polacre was a place of security for transac tions -of- thiS kind. Her Royal Highness had hired the vessel, and all on hoard were her ser vants; and she had travelled 4 froin place to place, not - so much from the -desire to behold other countries, and to contemplate the revolution which had taken place in the na'tions of anti quity, as to derive gratification from troK!yer source. There: was something: more inlher imagination than e curibsity of this sort was calculated ,to inspire. Why had the. Captain removed his young -relatioe; the Mate, upon the exhibition of the passion ? because he was determiued to let her have her pleasure.. lle kneW that her Royal flightless had paid for her . amusement, and She should not therefore be pre vented frOm g;ettifYing herself. Now, in coln- Mon cases of adultery, one , ingle.fact supplied ground for -damages and separation ; but in this case there 'were. six months of indecent fate' ties observed. He would not charge all that time as antidtiltery ; but there were flee weeks of it which had been passed by her Royal High ness and Bergami under the same tent day and night, and no doubt existed as to the ,presomption that the voyage had been undertalen, - not as a voyage of discovery, but of gratification. The Noble LOrd here read part of the evidence of Gargailo, which stated, - that Schiavini had been present when the tent Was closed, by order of her Royal Highness upon her and Bergami. Adul tery Was, he said, often proved by a single, wit ness.- Now, if the charge was not true, why had not Schiayini been produced ? The evidence of what had occurred during the five weeks to which he . had alluded,' remained, in truth, w holly uncontroverted. Now this was what had been stated in favour of the Bill, by the evidence brought forward in' support of it. What had beet proved in favour -of the Bill by the de fence Who had beet; the advocate for It there? Mr. Hol,vnam.—The belief of so reltietant a wit ness as Mr. - Hownam, who admitted, M e ttle outset, that he had been under the greatest obligations to her Majesty, was oue of the Most powerful arguments in favour of the supposition, that the adielterous intercourse had been carried on with very little interruption. Ile conceived there was no doubt that the adultery had been proved he declared, from his heart, his belief, that not only the adultery was proved, but also a long course of adulterous intercoUrse. Ile did not letto:v how any one, looking at the evidence; could think otherwise. Three of the most pi ontinent wit nesses were as well entitled to credit as any that ever appeared in a :Court of Justice. Bergatni lyitig oat the .- bed in the day-time with the tent clo , ied, was a strong proof of guilt indeed for what other . purpose.'but that of an improper intercourse could it be so closed ? After paying the dtmost attention to this trial during the whole time, he could not but feel sa tisfied as to the guilt of the Queen. He .wished he could have come to a contrary decision ; -but, in his conscience, he could not. Heevished there had been more evidence, or less than had been produced. Ile wished that a selection had been made. Ile was ae Member of the Secret Com- Mittee ; he then felt there were grounds for this prosecution ; and now, that 40 or 50 days had been spent in the inquiry, his opinion remained still unchanged. Many things had been brought forward quite irrelevant : instead of trying the accused person, foUr or five days had been occu pied iii trying the Milan Commission, and yet nothing, against the character and conduct of that' Commission had been proved. He wished that Some of the witnesses had not been brought for ward. It had been said that the public had de cided this question ; .but he certainly did not at tach much importance to that opinion, as it had been declared before the Queen's trial began. From the moment ' her Majesty landed in this country, Addresses had followed each other, de clarin her to be perfectly innocent. Their Lord ships had been told, that if they gave a verdict against the Queen, it would be without effect ; but, if they were to be intimidated by such a threat, they would he unworthy the seats they held as Peers of the Realm. The Noble Lord then noticed the allusions that had been made by Counsel as to a parallel case to the present, and entered into a long. eulogium in praise of his present Majesty,, who had immortalized his name, and the age in which he lived, by the success which had attended the period in which he had swayed the Britkh Sceptre. Rarl GREY began by saying, that he would not have occupied the time of the House, if he had not felt that he could not discharge his du ties with satisfaction to his own conscience, with out stating the grounds of the vote which •he in tended to give upon the second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties. His Lordship then continued in the following manner . :—One of the Noble Lords who has preceded me, has advert ed to what fell from the Counsel at the Bar dur ing the proceedings on this Bill. I shall not enter into any justification of any thing of this nature ; but I will say, that if the Counsel at the Bar used any expressions which were not warranted by the, situation in which they stood, and were derogatory to the dignity of the House, it was the duty of their Lordships to interpose, andUot allow that to take place which would subse quently become the subject of unfavourable corn- . ment. 1%1 Noble Friend has misunderstood the nature of the observations made by the Learned Counsel ; but as it is not my duty to maintain or defend them, I shall not imitate the conduct of my Noble Friend, by dwelling on the subject. — There is another point, however, which I shall take the liberty of adverting to, before I proceed to the consideration of the solemn and distress ing subject, to discuss which we are now assem bled. It has been said by a Noble Lord, that the Noble and Learned Lord upon the Woolsack disappointed him exceedingly by not going into ttf.tOropre'llensive i•evieVir of t e evil ace :which has been offered at your Lordships' B on both sides of this momentous question, before he de clared to the rllottse — th - e . opinion . which - he had foA - nedNon it. For my own ,s.-I'tisfa.::tion *nd informati I:should have been 'happyr to listen. ,t e&any sue k eview: IN° le .and Learned rhottl , faN, pt/- - t f Thavt.qq.tt posed upon hiucl?iTtheAituatiA. W. uckhes4tola; iii this House; but as no such duty existed, I cannot agree with my Noble Friend in making that a subject of complaint,- which was the-cor, rect exercise of the Noble and Learned Lord duty as a 'Peer of Parliament. It will be re- Membered,* that ie the opening of the speed' which the Learned Lord upon the Woolsack ad dressed- to your Lordships, he distinctly stated that he was not,called upon, by any considera tion of duty, to" enter into a regular review' of the evidence. He stated, that ha, was not sitting here as a Judge, to instruct th , members of a Jury, bUt that he was a Peer am )ugst his Peers ; in short, a Juror amongst his fell >w Jurors ; sit ting, as ,other Members of the Houg:s, to ,explain and defend the opinion which he had farmed a after a careful consideration of the evidence, linen the justice of the case, and the prop lety of the verdiCt. None of your Lordships will forget what has fallen from the venerable Peer upon the Woolsack, when he said that'he.:sat aosongst us as a Juror, and not only a .3 uror, but in his legislative capacity. We were distinctly informe.l,nair Lords, of the opinion which was held by the ',aril Chan cellor uponthis measure. He stated to the House, that the only question for your consideration was, whether this Bill, a - State'rneasitre, indicting heavy pains and penalties upon the first Subject of the realm, should be' passed into a law by your Lordships, taking into consideration not only the ends of justice as it regards the question of the Queen's guilt or innocence, but also the policy or impoliey of legislosiog upon such charges. As a Legislator, the . Noble and Learned Lord upon the Woolsack said, he was bound to deliver his opinions upon the Bill ; but he disclaimed all such duty as is impOsed.upon the Judges in . the Courts. below, when they sum up- the evidence for the information of the Jury. The Noble and Learned Lord.upon the Woolsack was bound to state hia reasons to the !loose for the opinions Which he. communicated; but I am - sure your .Lordships Will agree with me, when I assert, that heswas not humid to sum up the evidence for or against the prosecution. Having so far stated what I felt right, in explanation of the duties really imposed upon the NOble and Learned Lord, although I feel that his own clear and comprehensive speech left little or no room for misconstruction, I shall proceed without ftir ther occupation of your Lordships' time upon any other subject than that great question before us--- the Bill of Pains and Penalties. When I look at the importance of the diScstision in which we are eengaged, and the great constitutional points which may be involved in our decision, I con fess, sclay 'Lords, tlmt I am distressed exceeding ly ; because I am tut!) , sen3;ble of theeTvist forts required, and the confined means which I can command to strengthen the cause which it is ray lot to advocate. Painful, however, as are some considerations which press upon me, ,and difficult as the task is which -is imposod by 'a sa cred. regard to my public duty, I shall not be deterred from it by any p?rsonal or private in ducements. lam here, my Lords, like the rest of your Lordships, to do my duty, and I will fearlessly perform it. - My Lords, I have 'read the history of my own, and almost every other Country, and they are e full of accounts of Mo narchs and Princes raising persons from the lowest situation in life -to rank, and to the highest sittia tions about their persons, and merely from ca price and their own pleasure. The Queen -was living in a country where society was shaken:to the foundation by revolution and war, and where in her situation she was doubtful of every - person round her, especially after the attackemade upon ber by Ompted.a. ; aad can there be any won der she should raise a'perSon to rank, - on whom she could confide, so that 'he, by the situation which he held, was entitled to be constantly in her presence as a guard and protector. I call your. Lordships not to allow suspicion, (for that is the extent which the evidence goes even at the utmost stretch,) to stand in the place of proof. His Lordship then adverted to the evidence of Majocci, who swore that the only way from the Princess's room to Bergami's was through his room; that he saw the Princess twice go through his room, in the middle of the night to Ber gami's room ;. and afterwards he admitted that there was another way by a passag My Lords, if you believe that the Queen did go through INlajocci's room on ,these two occasions, her guilt is clear ; if you believe what is sworn to have taken place at Gen Pints's, her guilt is clear; if you believe what is sworn by Sacchi to have taken place at the Villa Brandi,her guilt is clear, -but these facts are given up by the person who introduced the Bill. My Noble Friend, on the cross-bench (Lauderdale), said that there were some contradictions in the evidence of Majocci, Dumont, and Rastelli ; .yet they . had sworn a great deal of truth. My Lords, probably there may, but who is to decide when the important facts are proved to be utterly false ? The Noble Lord says nothing at all about Sacchi's evidence ; he, does not think it worth while to defend it.— In no case that ever was or ever could be brought into a Court of Justice, where the consolidated ' evidence wassproved to be false, would the Court ever allow the case to go to judgment on a single fact of suspicion or doubt ; for if the main 'pillars of the case were gone, espeCially if there was a suspicion of subornation, bribery, and perjury, which has been all proved to have existed in this case, no Judge would suffer such a case to go to a Jury ; and if our proceedings are to be in some instances assimilated to the practice of the Courts below, so we ought equally in the present, when we find that, although facts have been sworn to that lead us to suspect guilt, that clear, deci sive, and complete proof has not been given. His Lordship then referred to- an opinion 'of Sir Wm. Scott, against presuming to draw an inference of guilt ironi 'a}Vit'ienee at iiii?re suspicion. My Lords, it has been said by one of my Noble Friends, that the sister of Dumont shou4leave been called to have 'disproved the assertionvf'Dumont„, as to her Majesty's coming qut of Bergam'i's ro\m with heiepilhzzy otthich sh . g-‘t entity lay.Wy Cord,' ~e 1 Dumont lidostlNswev e . 9. *tively. I.laherAfigteir .. TaciaA3 4 as here : s N i She...NH - roe gikso ; 4 0u , W . Mariette'li`ad denied i tke Coensel wouhl ' have, said there Was no contradiction ; for Dumon t did not state the day this; scene took place, or she roight-have been-contradicted. That would n° ti have been enough, my Lords. Had Mariette been called for, then itwould have been said " Call the Countess of Oldi ; she can disprove the a bsence of the Princess." Why, my Lords, a que stio o would have been put to her,'' Might not the i Princess have left her room in the, middle of the night unlcooWn to you ?" She could only bore, aeswere'd in the affirmative ; and the Counsel fare the Bill would have said ,•" Dumont stands Ye t ,', 1111 contradicted." My Lords, I .think the Queen's.;' Counsel acted right in not calling these Wi t ''' nesses ; for ; if they had been found trippil., ever so lightly, the lynx-eye of my Noble Frient: (Lauderdale) would have said, cc These wi fr 's . nesses have been unable to disprove one fact; they Italie contradicted themselves, and are 0 1 . to be• credited." . But that is not all; for la. they had called, for instance . , the Countess °1: :, (Ali, if, she had been called to disproVe o'' t fact, site was open to a cross-examination ni- 011 , eVery fact that bad occurred, and ev - erY,: declaration made for the last six years. .11.: was wise in 'her Majesty's Counsel not V i O call Dumotit's sister, after it was proved - i 3 ai evidenee.that they had corresponded, which co r ' , respondence. was carried . on in double entendo;'.., [low could they depend upon. the sister speed:lok the truth ?- She might have been corrupte d ;.. However, there . were such circumstances "t susicion as to cause them, and I say I th 4 tliey.have acted wisely, not to call that girl.' The Counsel declared to you that they used their own discretion and judatnent in not calling thes‘'; witnesses ; 'for it was her Majesty's wish 'ilea al' should be fully exatnined. His Lordship, i ti continuation, said, that he had read the C o nstitu; tion as attentively as any man' in the House, O a ' although in some instances Bills •of Pains 5 0 Penalties had been brought in, when, tiler' was no plea of state t:ecessity, yet he. mu St FAY/ nothing but state necessity could \ jastify such $ measure. A bill of impeachinent was the most 0 11 : stitutional course; he hadalread i r recorded his 01) 11 nion upon that subject, and nothina that he 11 % heard had 'convinced him to the . ceetrarv. I iv ° surprised to hear from the Noble Lord on th: cross-bench (Redesdale) that an impeachnO t would not have been a proper and more .i b' e mode.cif proceeding in this case, than by the pre d sent .mode ; his Lolalsitip cannot, have forgot t h • : trial of Warren Hastings,' which lasted seve years, • and Parliament. only exercised the pow e " it possessed in impeachment to meet some exlll, • ordinary offenre,.:;:i ,-7- 1-was dangerous to the 1 - te .' not pri;videet for by exktin . c_.: enarirnetti! ,, . 1 41 surprised that the Lord Chifncello'r theuldsb ai° said, " that the mode of proceetlina by Bill °l.' :, Pains and. Penalties, we mere advantageou s 1 : the accused titan by impeachment," When, 0 , 1 former speech, he declared, " that if her :INP! t jests ' was proceeded nee:in.-A by impeeclonent , a was doing nothing, for It never would come t ° tlO conchtsion-- ."(liie Lordship continued Us' all i , e the injustice 'to, her Merjesty, by bringitrg io t'l Bill of Pains and renalties, especially if it sh un '. be passed-in the Lords, arid _rejected in the C° l9 ; mons, in the frightful state of the country.) I ' l `, e ask a question of those Noble Lards, Ni , no 1 01. 1 1 , with such ardour and spirit supported this Wee Suppqse, my Lords', that at the conclusion o f o' ft statement or opening of the A tto'mney -iG enera l : t i had been stated to vou,notwithstanding thegl oo l 9 , language of the Attorney-General, and his a s e , Lions of Positive prdef of adultery at N a ples P ee tween her Majesty aril her courier, that th e whole statement of.the Odions, disgusting, at if indecent conduct of the parties was complete,e false ? If you had foreseen, my Lords, that , OP , alleged facts that took place at Naples, at Gehe ral Pino's, at Carlarime, at Charnitz, or t. 4 journey from Rome to Senegaglia, and at Ca ta o;; would lie abandoned ilefore the Bill was reel second time, ;would you not have abandon et 'd proceeding founded upon falsehood; perjury, 3 " 0 1 bribery ? The Noble Earl then took a revie o 4 !Oct evidence of Dumont, Rastelli, Sacchi, i t 1,,,, Majocci, sheaving the gross and palpable c ° ,i, tradictions and perjuries which they conovittlhe and asserted that they were unworthy of t . O , least credit.--L-MY Lord,' when this Bill we' 1 , 0 5 _traduced,. I resolved, that if such •a case lee made out as was promised, one of that ch a to which is expressed in the preamble of the o f I say, if proof had been given of gross acts Oa disgusting and indecent conduct in public ' l l . O l private, and a familiarity which• was disgra ce s / andedegrading to her Majesty, the Royal er a mily, and the ,country, I would have ar r 0 to a Bill to degrade her from her rank, she b,, e r tf unworthy of it. I then resolved, if these lay had been proved by unsuspicious evidenc e ' to testimony which was unquestioned, to Tie for ,her Majesty's degradation ; but it is t he possible that I can agree to this Bill, whe n t ef chief evidences have been proved to be unw ( l ie tt of belief, and every one of them- who. a re ca ec a to speak, to minor and detached facts are nisi* r p to have been hired and perjured. Has, my filacl the evidence proved that her Majesty's O n l ei was licentious anti disgraceful, both in P ° 0 0' anti private ? Has it proved that h er ,oe duct was so indecent and disgusting, tha' pl e 9 In-aright discredit on this country, in the b`e'ett of foreign Courts ? No such evidence has e eor produced ; but the contrary has been provet i o rte she was received at most of the Courts on the ile a, tineirt, and at all the places where she traveA 01 except at Vienna. [His Lordship tbenirfr, a high eulogium to the character of L ora o ea shine ; be regretted that his Noble and Le 3f .,e Friend, whose glorious life in the cause of . 1 . o f tice, rendered him worthy the admiratiel'air , every one, should at the time he was so ably !ler v i