The Sun.
London, England, 1820-10-28 00:00:00

the proof did not go so far as the statement in
the opening ; butlall. he would ask was, did she
go to the Theatfe San Carlos, or did she not ?
He could have no opjection to her Majesty en-
joying the'. amusement of. the Masquerade, or
~even joining < in it; bat his statement %tiis, that
she went not accompanied by any of the 11
Ladies of her.suite, .not. accompanied _by Sir 1
William Gell or Mr. Craven, not accompanied
by Dr. Holland, although he was there at'
the time.—[Mr. Denman, in an under tone, ask-
ed " how does that appear ?"]—How did it ap-
pear ? he should presently show that from the
evidence of Dr. Holland himself. He was not
at all displeased with his Learned -Friend for in-
terrupting him in what he conceived to be a mis-
'statement. On the contrary, he was extremely
thankful, and should always be most happy to
be corrected if, he wrongly stated any thing; for
he was incapable of knowingly stating` any thing
incorrectly, indeed he should think himself un-
worthy of ever having the honour to address
their. Lordships,if ever he made a wilful mis- ,
statement of any circumstance. The charge then
was, not that her Majesty went to the masquerade
—not that she went in disguise, but that she 'went
accompanied, by her menial, Bergami, and her
fate de chambre, Dumont, instead of any of the
Ladies of her suite. Their Lordships were al-
ready aware of how. Dumont proved that part, of
the case; she described the natare of the dress,
and the manner in which her Majesty had gone.
And 'yet they were gravely told that there was
nothing in this part of the charge, but that her
Majesty had gone to a masquerade in u rainy
night ! Now, what had Doctor Holland said
on this occasion I He admitted, page 611,'that
he recollected being one night at the Theatre
San Carlos- when the Princess came there.--r-
-(Mr. Denman here asked what proof there
was of its being that particular night ?)—The
Attorney-General read the evidence of Dr. Hol7
land from the Minutes. lle was_asked, " Whe-
ther he -had ever been at a Masquerade at the
Theatre'of San Carlos when her Royal Highness
was there ?" Ile answered, " I was." " With
whom did her Royal Highness go ?" " I was not
aware till- the following morning that her Royal
Highness had been tkere." " Did you remain
there during the whole, or nearly the whole, of
the performance ?" " Only about an hour, as
far as I can recollect ; certainly a short time."
" Are you to be understood that you do not know
with whoM herßopl- Highness went to the
theatre• that evening ?" Ido not." But Mr.
Denman said, how did it appear that it was at
that time that her Majesty so went to . the
theatre ? 'lt did not lie with his side to prove that
her Majesty went any other night. He
.(the At-
torney-General) begged leave to ask, how.it had
appeared that her Royal Highness went on any--
other occasion to a masked ball at ' the theatre of
San CarlOg? No such proof had been given, and
therefore it was clear that she.had been there
on the occasion stated by the witness Dumont,
and that Dr. Holland was not aware of that cir-
cumstance till the following morning. If their
Lordships had entertained any doubt on' this
subject, had not Dr. Holland removed that
doubt ?—and if the, qnestion still remained unde-
cided, why were not:Sir W. Gen and Mr: Kep-
pel Craven e )xarnined. to the point . For the best
of all possible reasons,. because they knew no-
thing on the subject. Her Royal Highness went
but upon one occasion, and then in company, not
with any of. the Gentlemen or Ladies of her
suite, but with her inferior domestics, Dumont
'and Bergami, the latter having been in her ser-
vice but three or four mouths, Why did-she not
choose for her companion Hieronymus,. or Sic-
card, or any other of her servants, who, from
long experience, was entitled to her confidence ?
Why select a 'man who had been but. a few
months in her service, and but a few days- before
had been a courier,44titongh, after his arrival at
Naples, he had been raised to the rank of foot-
man? Could their Lordships draw:any other in-
ference, thin that it was because an adulterous
intercourse had commenced_ between her Royal
Highness-,and this Bergaini at Naples, and had
been continued from thence till she arrived at.
St. Omer's ? He had grounds for' stating that she
went unknown to tier suite ; because it appeared,
according to Dr. Holland,that it was not known till
the folloWing morning. It was not for hiM to ask,
whether it was to that night in particular that all
this evidence, referred. No other night had been
assigned, and it was therefore confirmed; Dumont
next stated, itn page 255; that she had seen Ber-,
gami and her Royal Highness walking artn infirm
upon a terrace in the garden of her Royal High-
ness at Naples. How had this hen attempt-
ed to be disproved ? By the most extraordinary
evidence that lie had.ever heard a., Sir William
Gell and Mr. Craven were called to contradict
it. The former Gentleman, in pa'ges 557 and
559, states that he saw her Majesty walking ou
the terrace, with Bergathi attending behineher.
But the most important evidence was that given
by Mr, Craven, page 540 ; he said he saw her
Royal
.Highness in the garden, with Bergami
near her. He knew there was a spy at that time
at Naples, from informatiOn he bad received from
England, and he thought it necessary to caution
her R9yal Highness against appearances on that
account. So that because he saw her Royal
Highness in broad dhy-light walking on the ter-
race at Naples, with "Bergami behind' her, he is
so-sensible;"sO alive ftO'the inipropriety of the
circumstance, that he
,assumes the character;of.
tnonitor;• and 'adVisei his' 'Royal. Mistress to. be:
cautions as to walking in the situation in which
he had. seen 'her! At- the same time he declares
he :saw nothing improper in' this CondUct. And
,
yet he Wild; saw an impropriety in William
Anstin's ifeePing in her Majesty's moth,
.saw.,
none:ut 'another: time iii her walking rather
too near her servant. But it was, in fact,
betause site was w`alkwg With Bergami, that
necessity'' Of caution'. had Occurred to
him. If it had been 'with' any Other, would
• he.•have' intimated: the impropriety ? There
was' no impropriety inn her Majesty having
a servant atteiiehtPlif her walking; ltut sus-
'incton only attached to thail man. Ir there was