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

Ite-exandned by the ATrORNEY-GENERAL.

Q. I believe you have the command ofaguard-ship at Ports-
mouth ?—A. I have: I hate the command of the Britannia.

Had you that command at the time his Majesty was at
Portsmouth ?—Yes.

Did you dine with his Majesty in company with the other
officers of the fleet who paid their respects to his Majesty ?
Yes, the officers of the navy at Portsmouth ; every. one of the
Captains without exception,

Examined .by Lord NIORLEY.

Q. Now, in narrating the conversation which took place
between you and Lieuteuant Hownam, can you take upon
yourself positively to swear, that the words were,'' had
gone down upon his knees to ask her Majesty not to let Ber-
gaini sit at her table ? Or, "I could have clone so ?"—A. I
understood him to hare said, he had entreated her upon his
knees not to suffer Bergarni to sit at her table.
I understood you to say that you made no memorandum of
what passed ?—Yes. •
And that this conversation took place in the month of No-
vember, 1815, and consequently five years ago ?—Yes.
- Now he good enough to say whether you can recollect pri-
vate conversation by hearsay ?—The circumstance of toy hav-
ing had that conversation. •
Vben this conversation at first passed, did yon conceive it
passed front the circumstance of Bergami's -first introduction
to the table, or do you suppose it arose from a previous ar-
rangement for that introduction.
The ATroast.Y-GcxERAL.—My Lords, I am unwilling to
interpose any objection; but, do your Lordships think that
what this Gentleman " conceives" can be evidence ?
The Loan CHANCELLOIL—The question is, what was said
by one to the other.
The examination of the Witness resumed by Lord MonLEy.
.Q. I would ask whether or no Lieutenant Hownatit stated
this to him the first time on which Bergami dined at the table
of her Majesty, or did it arise from incidental circumstances,
or in consequence of previmis arrangement?---A. I under-
stood him to say so in answer to a question that I had asked
him ; and I understood it to have happened on the day the
change took place, from the circumstance of that change.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—My Lords, as the
case now stands, I kill not trouble your Lord-
ships with any more witnesses. Will you allow
me to suite that Captai❑ Briggs, having a com-
mand at Portsmouth, which requires his constant

attendance, he requests you will indulge him by
allowing him to go to Portsmouth.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Leave was given to
other witnesses under similar circumstances.

Mr. BnouuttAm.—l have not the slightest ob-
jection to it, my Lords. I have no wish to in-
commode either Capt. Briggs or the service.
The Duke of SOMERSET expressed a wish, be-
fore the Counsel for the Queen summed up, that
he might be allowed to recal Lieut. Ilownain.
Mr. BROUGHAM, interposing, said, that per-
haps it became him to state whether he had any
evidence to offer in rejoinder. He added, that,
under the circumstances in which he was placed,
he had no evidence to offer further.

Lord LIItPOOL.OR reference to the request of
the Duke of Somerset, observed, that as the ob-
ject of the Noble Lord's motion was the re-exa-
mination of a witness who had been already done
with, it might perhaps be convenient to state the
particular points with reference to which the re-
examination was desired.

The Duke of SustEnsET stated, that he wished
to ask Lieutenant Kownatu some particulars, as
to the tent or awning o❑ the deck of the po-
lacre, which, to his Lordship's mind, were not
exactly clear.

Lord LIVERPOOL had not the slightest objec-
tion to Lieutenant liownam's being recalled, nor
would he now enter into any argument with re-
ference to the right of• Noble Lords to call back
witnesses; but he would suggest to his Noble
Friend, whether, for convenience sake, as well as
for the sake of regularity, it would not be better
that the examination which had been closed,
should rest where it did ; because, if one witness
were recalled, to state more particularly any
minor facts, all the witnesses might be recalled
for the same purpose.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN perfectly concur-
red in the observations of Lord. Liverpool. If
the proposed course were to be pursped, every
witness might be recalled who had not clearly
and conclusively established any particular fact
to,which he had been interrogated. He was
sure the Noble Duke would abstain from a
course whicl might be productive of much in-
convenience.

The Duke of SOMETISET -withdrew his appli-
cation.

Lord GnosvExonl for the same prudential rea-
sons, declined making a similar application for
the like objeot.—(Cites of" Go on ! go on !" now
proceeded from various parts of the House.) _

- The LoRD CILPICELLOR then asked Mr.
Brougham whether they were now prepared to
proceed to the summing up.
Mr. BROUGHAM.---43, Lords, to save vour
Lordships' time and trouble, my riend, Mr. Den-
man, tells me he is ready to goon.

Mr. DENMAN then addressed their Lordships
as follows:—" Under any circumstances in
which it is possible for any advocate to be called
on to proceed to the discharge of the solemn
duty now imposed on me, I might well request
some indulgence from your Lordships : and it
may be that there are circumstances in my situ-
ation that seem more particularly to entitle me
to more than an ordinary share of your kind-
ness. For after the application which was yes-
terday made to your Lordships by the Attorney-
G eneral, to postpone the further proceedings in
this case, until he should be enabled to procure
the attendance- of Colonel Brown, it might have
been expected that not a solitary witness—not
a single point of evidence, was all that it was
contemplated to produce in support of this case,
in addition to those which had been so amply
supplied at the commencement. This I con-
cQive to be the more deserving of yeui? Lord-
ships' consideration, when you reflect that the
cross-,:?xamination of the witnesses for the defence
led plainly to the inference that it was the inten-
tion of the Learned- Counsel for the Bill to go
at length into evidence in reply, and that this
must have tended to divert our minds from that
connection with the case made upon the other
side, which it was necessary for us to preserve,
in the contemplation of being required, to proceed
immediately with • our summing up. But 1
should have been wanting in my duty if I had
suffered any circumstance so far to draw aside
my attention from all the prominent points of this
case, as to be under the necessity of requiring
any delay in the discharge of my particular
duty, which might have occasioned a delay in
the
_proceedings, or any inconvenience to your
Lordships. I shall, therefore, my Lords, pro-
ceed without further preface to lay before you
some observations on the case, by which I trust I
shall satisfy your Lordships, and convince the
public mind, if any conviction yet be wanting,
that the Queen has established her complete de-
fence, and is entitled to a.full acquittal from all
and every one of those charges which your Lord-
ships have permitted yourselves, to try against the
Queen of England. I wish to proceed to this
great and solemn inquiry with all the calmness
and soberness of judgment that the importance of
the case demands; and, if, in the course of the in-
terlocutory contests which have abounded through
the course of these proceedings on points that
have arisen, some things may have been uttered
that appeared harsh in their nature, or severer in
their application, I trust it will be attributed to
an excess of that natural anxiety which the na-
ture of the case would call up. I feel it due to
the Attorney-General to disclaim what has been
attributed to me of personal disrespect towards
him, and if I could believe that what dropt from
me yesterday, was construed by him into a
doubt of his veracity, Ishould know of no ad,..

[PRICE SEVENPEN CE.

quate reparation for such an attack upon his
feelings. Warm I may have been, and it is
impossible for any man who comes here with right
feelings not to be so ; but I would be the last
person in the world to wound the feelings of
those who are opposed to me in the discharge of
an unpleasant duty. When I consider that the
Queen of England has been, from tire hour of
her first landing in 'this country to the present
moment, visited by the most cruel persecution,
it is impossible for me not to feel influenced by
those sensations which must influence every feel-
ing mind. These sensations have occasionally, per-
haps, made me more warm than I should have
been, as it regards my Learned. Friend the At-
torney-General, in his personal character; but I
will not for one moment forego my right of anim-
adverting upon his conduct as an Advocate. I
will not scruple to assert that he has betrayed
too much of the spirit of this prosecution, which
in its disgraceful duties has weighed him down,
and for which no honours, however extensive, can
compensate ; a prosecution, my Lords, which I
would not have conducted for any earthly consi,
deration, for I feel
-that no purchase can be large
enough for the disgrace w hi ch must attach to those
who upon such grounds have sought to crush the
wife of •the present King of England. Before I
proceed, my Lords, 1 must once more refer to
the indictment. It is there charged—" That
her Majesty, while at Milan, in Italy, had en-
gaged in her service, an individual, in a- menial
capacity, and that while in that situation a most
unbecoming and degrading intimacy soon com-
menced between her Royal Highness and that
individual ; that he was not only advanced to a
high situation in her Royal Highness's household,
but that he was received by her Royal Highness
with great and extraordinary marks of favour and
distinction; and that she, unmindful of her ex-
alted rank and station,and wholly regardless of her
own honour and character, had conducted herself
towards him, both in public and private, in the
various places and countries which she visited,
with indecent and offensive familiarity and free-
dom, and carried on a licentious, disgraceful, and
adulterous intercourse with the said Bergami, by
which conduct of her Royal Highness, great
scandal and dishonour had been brought upon her
Royal Highness's family and this kingdom."—
The evidence can only apply to the proof of the
allegations made by the A ttorney-General ; and
it is a subject of complaint, and I say it is most
grievous to her Majesty's Counsel, that the charges
in the preamble should have been so vague, so
complicated, and have occurred, as is alleged, at
such a distance of time, that it cannot be a matter
of surprise that I and my Learned Friends
should complain. It is true that Bergami did
enter her Majesty's service in a menial situation,
if the situation of courier in her Majesty's' ser-
vice is a menial situation. It is true that her Ma-
jesty promoted him to a higher and more confi-
dential situation. It is true that Bergarai re-
ceived honours from different Sovereigns ; and,
my Lords, when that is made a subject of charge
against her Majesty that she procured them, it is
not too much to say, that I and my colleigues,
and indeed every body, expected that evidence
would have been' offered to prove that these
titles and . honours had been procured by
her Majesty for him. But, my Lords, What
is the fact ? not a tittle of evidence has been of-
fered to establish this charge.. The only proof
of Bergami having received any honour is,
that her Majesty, when she travelled an arduous
and most tedious voyage to Jerusalem, rewarded.
her suite, who accompanied her in her difliculties
on that journey, by instituting an order to com-
memorate the extraordinary undertaking of a
British Princess. It is proved that she did in-
stitute an order ; but, my Lords, was that a
crime ? Bergami was not alone the person who
received the honour ; all her suite who were
about her person received the honour. I say, my
Lords, what crime did my Illustrious Client
commit, in instituting this Order in commemora-
tion of her journey to Jerusalem, the Holy City ?
No crime whatever. It was no criminal offence
for a subject to institute an Order, when abroad,
or even at home. In France, Noblemen and
Princes had established Orders and had never
been called to an account by the reigning autho-
rities ; they had established orders of
.merit, and-
more, three brothers in Italy created au Order of
knighthood, to reward their faithful followers ;
a merchant had adopted a similar course ; and
many other instances can be cited of a similar
character. I have, my Lords, treated this charge
with seriousness, merely because it was so treat-
ed on the other side, though, as an offence, it was
truly absurd ; but it was put in the bill to swell
out the charges against her Majesty, and I believe
that such must be the opinion of your Lordships.
The Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon had institut-
ed Orders, and where was the criminality ? My
Lords, I believe that I have dwelt longer on this
point than it required; but as it is alleged as an
olfen •c that my client instituted an Order, .I
thought it my duty not to slightly handle
this charge, but to satisfactorily show to your-
Lordship;, as I trust I have, that the charge
ought not to have been in the preamble of the
Bill. Now comes, my Lords, the charge of
adulterous intercourse, and the real question for
your Lordships' consideration is, whether an adul-
terous intercourse has taken place between her
Majesty time Queen of this realm, and Bartholo-
mew Bergami ; and also •whether that adultery
took place under such circumstances as to bring
scandal and disgrace upon the Royal Family in
the eyes of Europe, as, is alleged in the preamble

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 familiar ?
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
saidt 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 fact
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 mornin,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 locked up next-morn-
ing with her Majesty or of his breakfasting with
her. There is •no proof of any adulterous 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 evidence ? 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 fact 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 proof ; yet
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,'which 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 at the masked ball.—=cc Her Royal
Iligheess," says my Learned Friend, 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
vqtlishe...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 tinder 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 Zr,
`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 much to prove adne-0
between Dumont and Bergami, 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 lapse of Si% 11t,
to prove where Bergami slept on some 11%.i
not even specified—or because it Was 5..
"0
that Bergami's bed on a particular occasion
in a certain state, did it follow that Berginuisle,Fil
in her Royal Highness's room, and not la 31,:i
other room on that night ? Let it first be.Pll3:;iti
that he slept iu her Royal Highness's rooru, "uo
then the appearance of his bed may be of scelia
.value as a corroboratory circumstance. Ile the
net: however, intend to dwell on this part of ,v 5
evidence at present, but to direct their Lordsb:lis
to that which wotild be found at page
13
360 on the
same subject. Would, there be found tlt ijer
Solicitor-General, on the std of September7l,;cll
re-examination, put a question 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-e3O-co
nation to question a witneSs,unless with refer the
to something which has been elicited °ll, tbii
cross-examination, The Solicitor-General se` cot
rule' at uoug,ht ; and without once observing .it-/?,ei
Dumont to say that when she left the Prlnce:a4
room her door Was locked ; although there -tot
nothing which could warrant it in the renjuip.Y
way, this question appeared in the cross-exand'
tion ; by this means that which vas susi'ic)ie
against Dumont became suspicious aga-jusit,ds
,Royal Highness; bttt had her Majesty7s.';,o:
sel not been taken by surprize, such evl'c'
:should never have been suffered to aPPc3.fte
.the minutes.. Was it to be endured, that 31„:
two dayi
tamed it waa found a it'
had in that failed to establish grouad f°'.sol
desired inference, that then the required al.,:.bir
was to be regularly obtained? Their 1-•°'%oP
-would know what value evidence of thi to,
Was entitled to. lie next adverted to tl'°iS
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
ri
possessed this guilty pair. There was a Pdot'
passage by which the Princess might lace
into his roOtn unobserved by ally one, but '9),er
of choosing that, she goes throguh the rooin 1'
- the servant of the sick man is watchigos.e
where a tire is constantly burning. 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 indulgence of 11c.
minal passion. Anxious to avoid every ely'(e'
11
prefers that passage which is most certain 'ea,'
posing her to_ the observation of a persoo i''.'',
hired into her service, and who, for any t.‘:)!
knew, might immediatelyaly 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 seriously entertai'''i
a single moment ? The Attorney-Geuer`„l.o',
in his opening case, been pleased to ernbel tee 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 fail
whispering. The Attorney-General, b°l
doubt shaped his averments according °in's,'
structions, but the witness had not bee'',
ciently tutored so to shape his evideue,"
make the averment and proof correspoi„,ll';perf
disagreement between the Attorney'',
opening of Majocci's evidence and the e 011
itself, was not more remarkable than theAd
diction which existed between the eci"belic
Majocci and that of other individuals, `ci.,tui
other individuals could be called to sPeIIOY
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 expressly,
3"
Royal Highness never was present on 01
occasion. Why had not the Origina"rsi, $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'ss'll,)
Agents, to call all who were Witnesses 4ifrigr
the imputed circumstances of crinsinalite
regard to the way in which their-evicl_telissaci
probably tend ?—Why had they 01',004,1,
course to the best, rather than to the sA'caloi
dence-they could procure ? Who soul" on
Dr. Holland, in point of respectabiliti).%pi
a man as Majocci ? and yet true it Viiisi7 DAY,
Holland, who could best tel the. tintl to,
been called upon by those who prores'e't
nothin at heart but the developenlean to e,fli
truth ?~
The same observation aPPlie.,tetco,
one of the witnesses. if the adulterous 'Ltd, is,•
imputed to her Majesty had really ofs.l' usei
could have• had better opportunities :9
it than her Ladies, of Honour ? pfe,of'i
be told that motives of confidence nug,kprilotl
them from revealing what they knew' itie,',l,!t'
by the
.King to attend on her MajestPcotila
in a sort of public function, and tlieY 10/
f tel oft
no duty more imperious than that o
truth in all that regarded her AlajestY