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

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

0x ro RD, OCT. 27.—The nomination of the Rev.
Peter Elmsley, M.A. of Christ Church, to be one
of the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, in the
place of the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lan-
daff, has been approved in Convocation.—On Sa-
turday last William Robert Crotch was admitted
Fellow of New College.
Thursday the following Degrees were con-
ferred :

MASTERS OF ARTS.
Rev. John Hunter, Magdalen College, Grand Compounder
Kee. Henry Owen Cleaver, Student of Christ Church, Grand

Compounder
William Henry Darby, Christ Church
John Netherton Harward, Scholar of Worcester College
Rev. Thomas Furbank, Lincoln College
Rev. John Elliott, St. Edmund Hall
Rev. IVllli3m Stalinlin, Fellow of Brasenose College
John Wither Awdry, Fellow of Oriel College
Badvis Powell,
Oriel College.
John Michael Severne, } '
Henry Francis Sidebottom, 1 Fellows of St. John's.
Richard Worgan Purist', I

BACHELORS OF ARTS.
Benjamin Croft Goodison, Worcester College
Daniel Keyte Sandford, Christ Church
Charles .lohn Plunier, i so•
George Robert Paulson,: lliul College,
The same day James Rhoades '5 as admitted
Scholar of Wadham College.

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY.

CONTINUATION OF THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL%

REPLY.

Before I approach the facts of this case, from
whence the adulterous intercourse has not
merely been presumed, and confirmed, but proved
to exist, I must beg your Lordships to consider
the admitted facts respecting Bergami ; that he
entered the service of her Royal Highness a me-
nial ; that he was promoted ; his relations placed
in her household ; and that titles, honours, and
estates were, in a few short months, conferred
upon him. Having said thus much, I now at
once approach the evidence that has been brought
beiore your Lordships, and doing this, Ineed not
sib that I shall stand in need of your Lordships'
patient attention. My Lords, Bergami had been
hired as a courier at Milan, and proceeded in that
capacity to Naples, where the Queen arrived in
November 1814. At Naples begins the evidence
of those facts, on which the preamble of the Bill
has been founded. There, according to the evi-
dence, that adulterous intercourse commenced
which was charged in the preamble of the Bill.
My Learned Friends, in conducting their case,
did not contrast their evidence with that produced
for the prosecution, but with my opening speech ;
and because the evidence did not support that
opening speech in every minute particular, they
contend, that the case has failed of all proof.
I on the contrary must state that it is the duty
of your Lordships to discharge that opening alto-
gether from your minds, and to ground your de-
cision solely on the evidence given at your bar.
My Learned Friends have had too much expe-
rience not to know that where the facts charged
are spread over, a long period of time, it is not
customary for COunsel to be tied down to prove
every fact set forth in the opening of a case, and it
is for the Judge who sums up—it is for your Lord-
ships, who are to decide on this important ques-
tion—to determine from the facts proved in evi-
dence. But if. Counsel were always tied down
to prove the rase they opened, I will shew by-
and-by how my Learned Friends have failed
to make out that which they have opened for the
defence. If this argument is to prevail, I will
shew not only that my Learned Friends have
failed, but that they have not even dared
to attempt making out the case which they
have opened to your Lordships. My Learned
Frie,trtis have examined the case at Naples solely
with reference to my opening speech. Because
that statement is not proved in every point, they
would assume complete failure, though the facts
charged are substantially proved, (as I think
they have been) by their own witnesses. What
is the case at Naples ? The case is, that at Na-
ples her Royal Highness altered the arrangement
of the sleeping-rooms. It has been proved, that on
her arrival the arrangement with respect to the
bed-rooms had been altered, and that a room had
been prepared for -William Austin, who had till
then slept in the chamber of her Royal High-
ness, while Bergami, who had previously slept
with the other servants in the suite of her Royal
Highness, was removed to an apartment which had
a private communication with that of the Princess.
This arrangement took place on the night when
her Royal Highness returned from the Opera,
when the exclusion of W. Austin from her room,
and the introduction of Bergami into the apartment
which had been described, connected with other
facts proved in evidence, led directly to the con-
clusion, that en that night the adulterous inter-
course had commenced.—How was this met ? It

was said that the whole statement had been con-1
A radicted ; but I beg to call their Lordships' at-
tention
to the evidence offered on this subject for
the defence. The witness, Dumont, had stated
that, previously to that night, young Austin had
continued to sleep in the apartment of her Royal
highness. In order to contradict her, Mr.
Craven had been called to shew that the removal
of Austin from her bed-chamber had been decid-
ed upon long before their arrival at Naples ; and
that he himself (Mr. Craven), who was one of
her equerries, and who might have added that he
was also one of her monitors, had in Germany
thought he observed something indelicate in Aus-
tin's continuing to sleep in her room—had given
to her Royal Highness a prospective caution, that
he ought no longer to remain in her apartment
after her arrival at Naples. But was this recom-
mendation attended to ? No. Was it decided
that Austin should have a room to himself ?
No such thing. One on occasion Mr. Craven
thought William Austin had slept out of the
chamber of her Royal Highness, and this was
all he could say. Carrington (on whose evi-
dence I shall have so many remarks to make
by and by) cannot swear that he slept more than
once or twice alone. But Siccard wits thxn call-
ed, whose duty it was to arrange the apartments,
and so little did he know of the intention of her
Royal Highness to remove William Austin from
her chamber, that on their arrival he provided no
apartment for him, supposing he would sleep, a,
he had always done, in that of her Royal High-
ness. But I will now call your Lordships' at-
tention to what is stated by the witness just men-
tioned, in page 603 of the minutes. There Sic-
card says, that soon after the arrival at Naples,
she told him (for the first time) she thought it
improper that Austin, then about twelve years of
age, should continue to sleep in her room ; and
Dumont had sworn to a similar conversation with
the Princess.:; and she
is supported. by. Siccard,

and Mr. Craven. 'lad the change in question
taken place before the time mentioned by Du-

mont, it must have been known to him, as it was
his duty to arrange the apartments. The fact,
then, which it was the object of my Learned
Friend to disprove, far from being contradicted
by those they have brought forward, is confirm-
ed by them, is got out of the mouth of her Ma-
jesty's own witness. What was the next fact
that had been stated ? It wa's this,, that on the
first night after the arrival of her Royal High-
ness at Naples, Bergami slept with the rest of

the suite ; but ou the second the arrangement of
which I had spoken took place. This, it 11'14
been said, was done without the knowledge of
her Royal highness by Siccard himself. Siccard
says this arrangement was made by him, without-
the knowledge of the Princess. Siccard says he

had no communication with her Royal Highness
on the subject. This would be found in page
591. Now Hieronymus, though he still remain-
ed in the service of her Majesty, and who could
have proved this communication, had not be-tu
called upon to do so, and this circumstance_breeds
in my mind a strong suspicion, that Siccard had re-
ceived instructions from Hieronymus, which had.
been issued by her Royal Highness. Siccard was
asked his reasons for making the arrangement of
the rooms, which took place at that time. -Milt
was his answer ? Mark, my Lords, the reason
he gives for it : He says, that there was a glass-
door opening into the garden,and that he thought
it right that a servant, or some one, should sleep
there for the protection of her Majesty. But if

that was the only object, why was not the com-
munication between the room of her Royal High-
ness and that of Bergami cut off ? Why, I say, my
Lords, was not the door locked up, fog- then it
would have added much to the security of her
Royal Highness ? But, though Bergami was
placed to protect her Royal Highness, there was
no precaution taken to protect her from himself,
or from any person that might go from the cabi-
net in which he slept to her Majesty's room.—
Carrington did not know of any such reasons ; he
never heard of any danger to her Majesty from
the garden, but states the only reason for Ber-
gami's being removed was, that he complained
the room he first occupied was not high enough
_ _

for him to stand upright in it, and this, according
to him, was the sole cause of the change which
had taken place. Where such contradictory

statements are made to account for the same
fact, when it is seen that Hieronymus might
have been called to prove what the communica-
tion which he had had with Mr. Siccard had been,

when it is seen that the Counsel for the defence-

have refrained from offering explanations which
they might have supplied, I must say, that it ap-
pears to me the only conclusion that can be come

ato is, that Bergami was removed from the room
in which he first slept, to that which he subse-

quently occupied, fOr-no other purpose, but that
he might more easily have communication with
her Royal Highness. It has been said that there
is a contradiction to Dumont as to the time her
Royal Highness returned from the Opera. I saw•,
my Lords, there is no contradiction. All that
Dumont says is, that it seemed to her that her
Royal Highness came home early—she does not
say positively that she did. Mr. Rappel Craven
and Sir William Gell were called to prove that
her Royal' Highness did not return at an early
hour, but in all they say, there is no contradic-
tion. The fact remains as it stood on the testi-
mony of Mademoiselle Dumont ; it has met with
no refutation whatever. Whether she returned
early or late, however, does not signify, for this
fact was clearly proved, that she dismissed her
attendants, having previously gone to the cabinet
for a purpose which Doctor Lushington had en-
deavoured to explain, but which explanation Con-
tradicted the'evidence of Doctor Holland, who
did not recollect that there was a water closet
there. Mr. Craven had attempted to explain that
circumstance respecting the water-closet;. but
Siccard, who was expected to corroborate him in
this particular, could not be sure that it was 45
he represented it. Ile next contended that there
was no contradiction whatever of Dumont's stata.
mint as to the time of the return of her Royal
Highness from the Opera ; and that part of her
evidence which related to the free communication
between the rooms of her Royal Highness and
Bergami, was confirmed by the testimony of
Siccard. His Learned Friend had said that ano-
ther part of the statement he had made in open-
ing the case to their Lordships, had not been
proved. He alluded to the fact of her Royal
Highness not being visible at so earl'', an hour as
usual the following morning, after the Opera:—
When his Learned Friend raid there was no evi-
dence in support of this allegation, they had for-
gotten the facts sworn to by Dumont, page 309,
who stated that on the following morning, after
she had dressed her Royal Higlinessohe remain-
ed for an hour and a half without belp visible,
having entered the small cabinet next to Berga:ni's
room. Siccard had been called to disprove this,
but lie did not recollect the hour her Royal
highness came down. In another part of the
case, the weakness of the Queen's defence was
manifestly evinced. Dumont, when speaking c 4
the comparison between the travelling bed and
the large bed in the same room, swore that the
next morning the travellink bed appeared to
have been never lain upon, while the larger bed
bore the impression of two persons. Mr. Wil-
liams had opened as a contradiOikon to this state-
ment, that he should call a servahst Who went into
her Royal Highness's room after Ole had retired