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

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 which they 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, washerd the
character was not compromised.
duty of Ministers in this
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 would 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 Ehea 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 regardless of her 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 ought to 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 Mariette ?
In that letter she 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 gre3;
happiness." Looking to the writtNt dalaraw,
of titivvitutv., which were direcO, opPosile:,
.6.very Ming ;Ilk had iv\orn;. wasAllb liteissible
hen. tetti4notil could le received in any. COlll4
'-justice ? The testimony of this witness ha- ,0
ceived a still more remarkable contras he
in the. evidence of Madame Martini ; and odo
she; was -called back and examined with re
rence to cetrtain conversations -which she had hat„,
with that lady, she denied all recollection oldie;
lie now came to the evidence as to what eced
red on board the polaccato the sleeping uncle
the awning or tent ;—and here he would obsert%,
that, if the evidence went to slew any instal' ,
of her Royal Highness passing from her royale,
the bed of Bergami, it would,.if on credital'of
testimony and unexplained, be presumptic'ca
guilt; but the case was quite different on boa
the polacre, and, of course, the same presume
tion could not follow. When first the Parb,,,
wetjt on board, there was an arrangement of tut,
beds, which was, on all hands, considered ua° ,
jectionable ; afterwards that was partially chal
ed, in consequence of a surgeon coming on bolie
The beds were at' this time below. New.,o
would ask their Lordships, if an adulter°ll,
intercourse was- sought fer by her Royal gigo
ness, would she not have continued the bew
below, where intercourse of that descrie„f
would be less open to observation ? Instead ut
this, what took place? Her Royal Highness we',
on deck,, where her actions were not only e`;
posed to the observations of her attendants, but
also to those of the whole ship's crew. The °s
opened on the deck; and, besides, there was as
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 circumstance to be taken as proof °i
adulterous ,intercourse ? What was to becoll'!„
of society, if a woman having a male attendowl
was to be taken as a proof of her guilt?
not a matter of every-day occurrence that werw'-,
were attended in their rooms by men, and al5
men by women; but who ever inferred guilt fr°,,,
I`i
that circumstance? Taking then, the whole e,
what occurred on board the polacre—and 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 "-scall;
dalous, disgraceful, and vicious." if the svh°i
of her conduct were taken together, it did O
amount to a proof of the preamble ; but all r
Majesty's acts, whether of private or public,'
character, had been abandoned by his Noble a%
Learned Friend, except those which took 00a
in the polacre. Tie Noble Lord next advert%
to the evidence of Majocci, which he said 10-
positively contradicted in most
-material parts; 34
he would spew, independently of his contradiv
tions ofhimself. He was contradicted with re;
spect to the ball and supper. After he describe,'
the Queen as having passed twice through
roam towards that of Bergatni, he denied at fir':
there was any other passage by which she might
have gone. Here his Lordship read some of the
questions put to Majocci.
[His Lordship was here proceeding to notice the ccintra‘lic°
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 on the table before hint; but alter some time 10
elapsed, without resuming his speech. sonic of the Peers'lLe;
came alarmed, and rose from their seats to proceed to 'A'
Lordship. The anxiety of the whole House was now arousey'
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.eb
immediately to Lord Erskine's assistance. :,j
They, te'
the assistance of Earls Grey and Carnavroo, Lo
Holland, and]hit. Baron Garrow, raised 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 07'1.4
obliged literally to tarry his Lordship out of the House,
into an adjoining 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 being so severe as to prevent his 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, wha9e
indisposition had compelled him to quit his seat-
But he could not pertnit this debate to go further
without observing, that his Noble nd Learned
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 £905
upon which he had' remarked, he saw enoagi:
for his own judgment: as to the rest, he had
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 legal
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 and
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, hear'
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 honest
,
duty between the parties ; but before he could
do that, he must conscientiously inform their
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 dowl}
in the case of Lovedale v. Lovedale, as had been
stated at their Lordships' liar. One of the leaf"
ing circumstances in this case, and from which
guilt was to be inferred' -was the relative situ 3"
Lion of the rfarties; for here they appeared t°