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

tioa,
to
J

SitUal

.0Y31101).
.111 °ICCIO
0).3 5
Irice"

t al' est
, the "i
Derv`
at
habit °
t:tids b
'ea
e 5
Lotli
,(}at",al
is "°:01
:hose bE
PI
'rad
. seci
riept)- 01
ad/14,
11 •
oyal 'Ol
Prose
pi „,

• ; P'
ranks ct
Sete

Iv ice.
[ the
row hte
eig,e
dy
shiP*
It'
at
noliP ,

Bergamitook her Royal Highness by the hand',
and led her into an adjoining room. This hap-
Pelted when all the company had left the,room.
Mr. Hownam was there, and Dr. Holland was
there, but not a question was asked of either of
them as to the purchasing of the chain. The
Learned Gentleman here took occasion to ani-
zriadvcrt on the contemptible conduct of some of
the public Newspapers (one in particular), in
AVIliCh things were published from day to day,
since the commencement of this trial, which
were a disgrace to the country that per-
_ .. _

znitted them✓ and an indelible stigma upon
those out of door advocates of her Ma-

jestys cause who sanctioned them. Their base
cowardice prevented them from fairly confront-
ing their antagonists in the falsehoods they had
the audacity to advance. Facts, which could not
be controverted by evidence at that Bar, were pro-
pagated throughout the country by means of the
newspapers, as falsehoods, solely for the purpose,
In which they succeeded, of deluding the public.
The Attorney-General then proceeded to the
evidence of Lieutenant Hownam, where he ad-
mitted that Bergami dined with her Royal High-
ness in his couries dress. He was asked if he
had dined with her more than once, and he said

never after in the dress of a courier ; but he

subsequently admits that he might have dined
Ivith her Royal Highness again in the dress of a
t'otrier; and Bergami alone, said the Attorney-
General, was the only servant ever admitted to
the table of her Royal Highness, and that too
whilst he was a menial servant. It had been in-

timated that the dress of Bergami was superior to
that of a common courier. Did the dress cause

degradation ? No ; the fact was, that Bergami
Was a menial servant, and that Bergami alone of
all the menial servants dined with her Royal High-
-11,,,55. It was stated, that Bergami was the maitre
d'hotel, but this was not true, for Mr. Hownam
Proves that Hieronymus was the maitre d'hotel,
and not Bergami: and yet Bergami dined with
her Royal Highness when he was courier, whilst
Hieronymus, who was the maitre d'hotel, was
not admitted to that honour. It has been stated,

that Mr. Burrell joined in the amusements at the
Villa d'Este, but I can hardly think that he ever
did so. These amusements, which have been
attributed to the condescension, and affability,
and kindness of her Royal highness, did not
take place until all her English suite had left
her. It was said that the English witnesses
Would drive the Bill out of the House ; but
all that the witnesses called by her Majes-

ty's Comm!' proved was, that with their own
eyes they saw no acts of indecency. And this
Is the sum of their proof.---Vhat, my Lords,
did one of the Members of your Lordships'

House prove.? I mean Lord Guildford : he visited
her Wlajesty and found Bergami, her servant,
Ivaiting at table, and in a few months after, on his
bray to her Majesty's Villa, he finds her Majesty
arid Bergami alone in a canoe on the Lake of
Como, and on the same day he saw the same man,
this Bergami, who was waiting behind her chair
a few months before, sitting by the side of her
Majesty at table. What must that Noble Lord
have thought when he witnessed this ? Had he no
suspicion that all was not right ? Had he no doubt
of guilt ? Why did he recommend his sister, Lady
Charlotte Lindsay, to leave her Majesty ? Was it
not in consequence of the indelicacy and impro-
priety of what he had been the witness of ? It has
been said that private confidence has been vio-
lated : I say no, I say it was necessary to exa-
mine that Lady, (and I should not have discharg-
ed, my duty if I had not) as to the impressions
upon her mind, and I admit that she might not,
as she says, have witnessed indecent conduct be-
tween her Majesty and her courier. Can there
he now any doubt how reports injurious to her
Majesty were circulated, when her conduct was
as 1 have described ? And what kind of evidence
have some of the English witnesses given before
Your Lordships ? If I were to read the answers
of some of the witnesses, I could find as many
" non mi ricordos" as there were in the evidence
of Majocci and Rastelli.
BARON ONIPTEDA.

At one o'clock the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OR
the suggestion of the LORD CHANCELEOR, was on
the point of withdrawing for a short time, when
Mr.DENMAN said, his Learned Friend Mr. Brougham
bad a very important communication to make to their Lord-
ships, and that although not then in the House, he would in-
stantly appear at the Bar.
Mr. BROUGHAM immediately appeared at the Bar, and
*poke to the following effect—My Lords, while his Majesty's
Attorney-General has been addressing your Lordships this
tuorning, and has stated we have proved nothing against
thupteda, I at that very moment was put in possession of some
most important documents. I have, my Lords, received letters
°f this Ompteda, proving him in correspondence with the ser-
l'ants of the Household of her Royal Highness,attempting to lit:-
duce the servants, and to procure faisetestimony against her.
These important letters, my Lords, are in the hand-writing
of Otopteda, and are addressed tu Marlette Duasont, then in
Me service of her Royal Highorss.
The ArfORNEY GENERAL expressed his astonishment
that further evidence should be offered after the case was
closed.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that this was certainly not
the "age of proceedings in which the letters could be received
by. t heir Lordships.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that if he had not made the coin-
ruunication to their Lordships the moment he was in posses-
sion of the documents, he conceived he should not have done
his duty to their Lordships nor to his Illustrious Client.
Lord HOLLAND—" Whatever proceedings the House may
afterwards adopt on this important subject, I think this is nut
the tune; hut no blame attaches to the Learned Counsel, Mr.
Brougham."
Lord LIVERPOOL did not blame Mr. Brougham,. hut only
said this was nut the time.
d.'l.lltMiat theUr Marquess of LANSDOWN thought it was Aue-in can-
-o Queen's Attorney-General should hstvetendered
that information to the House'at the earliest possible munieht.
. Harlot.; dune so, the Attorney-General fur the Crown might
avail himself of such knowledge if Ire thoughtlproper, but the
Attorney General for the Queen bad only done his duty in
communicating it. '
The Earl of DONOUQHMORE could not help expressing
:)%v entirely he differed in opinion from his two Noble
fiends. If there could ever Wine a time when it would be
t to enter jute the inquiry proposed by the Attorney-General
tur the Queen, circumstanced as the case was, the evidence.
upon both sides being concluded, was• a question which he
Would not undertake to determine; but this he would say,
that at all events the present was not the moment to enter-
tain it. He should not have supposed it pOssible, if he had
but' witnessed it, that such a statement could have been in-
terposed-at such a monient. Whatever importance might he
attached to the statement itself, still nothing could justify its
being ifitruded at such a time on their Lordships. Such was
his decided opinion, and he should think that he had tailed in
',his duty if he had not stated what he felt.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the question
before the House was, that Counsel should withdraw
Itotu the Bar. He did not sit there to give any opinion as to

the conduct of Counsel, or,the form in which the communica-
tion should be made. He would therefore put the question,
The question, being cat riect;Cou use! retired at a few minutes
after one o'clock, and returned after the expiration of hail
an hour, when
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed his Re-
ply was not, he said, his` intention to suffer
himself to be diverted from'. the course he was
pursuing by the extraordinary application which
had just been made, which he would say, was
one of the most extraordinary ever made to a
Court of. Justice. He should now advert to the
testimony respecting the staircase at the Villa
d'Este, where what was called a secret staircase
by Majocci, Mr. Hownam had described as a
staircase leading to his apartment, and -which
might also be used by the servants if they
chose. He would now call their Lordships' atten-
tion to what passed on board the Leviathan.
Here. Capt. Briggs made such an arrangement of
the sleeping rooms as would have appeared to any
one most consistent, placing her Royal High-
ness's female attendants near her ; but her Royal
Highness altered this arrangement, and fixed Ber-
gaini next her own cabin. Why was this done ?
was it necessary for her safety on board.the Levia-
than, Capt. Briggs, that Bergami should be next
her? He would confidently say, no such neces-
sity existed. It was true, that the communica-
tion internally between the two cabins was closed;
but there was the greatest facility for communi-,
eating externally, and he contended, that Capt.
Briggs's evidence proved this might be done.
On board this ship her Royal Highness proceeded
to Sicily ; and. here the evidence of Dumont and
Majocci proved several acts of familiarity pass-
ing between her and Bergami ; a contradiction
with respect to the kissing was attempted to be.
set up between Dumont and Majocci, but where
was the evidence that they spoke of the same
time ? From the facts proved at Catania, he sub-
mitted that an adulterous intercourse took place.
He then proceeded to read the evidence of Du-
mont as to the situation of the bed-rooms, and to
the fact of her having seen her Royal Highness
come in her undress, with her pillow undef.her
arm, from Bergami's room. Much had, indeedy
been said of Dumont, and of the little credit
due to her testimony ; yet, after all that eloquent
display of argument on the part of his four
Learned Friends—after all the oratory bestowed
on this chamber-maid—the very last witness they
called was a milliner from Morge, in Switzerland,
to try to contradict her as to a 'collateral fact.
This proved the little reliance they had on the
impression they had been able to make on tier
testimony. The great argument which.was raised
against Dumont was founded on her letters ;
ters which he was sorry to say had been pro-
cured by paltry intrigue, and which, he con-
tended, proved nothing against Dumont'; but
only that she.was aware that her letters might
be intercepted, and was, therefore, careful not
to say any thing which could injure her sister's
character. And there was a remarkable passage
in one of the letters written to the Villa, in
which she writes the names of her Royal High-
ness and Bergami in one sentence, and thanked
them for the kindness she had received from them
conjointly. This sentence, -he said, conveyed
proof of the knowledge whiff she at that time
possessed. So, as to the criss-examinatim .of
Dumont, who was tortured with questionvhoub.
after hour, as to her having been called Countess
Colombier, and other circumstances, as if to lay
a foundation for discrediting it ; and yet no evi-
dence had been called on those assumed facts.—
He denied that Dumont's evidence:had been dis-
credited by her letters. His Learned Friends
did not believe she was so discredited, for they
had tried other means of discrediting her. He
was willing they should look with caution to the
evidence, but it could not be 'wholly discarded
from consideration. If the evidence as to the
visit of her Royal Highness to Bergami's room,
at Catania was false, Mariette and the Countess
of Oldi might have been examined to contradict
her. So, at Catania, an honour and titles were
'procured for Bergami. No , such distinctions
were bestowed on 'any other of the suite. So at
Augusta, here were portraits and pictures of her
Royal Highness given. to her servant. How
could this extraordinary conduct be accounted
for, except by the acknowledgment that an af-
fection existed between them ? But all these cir-
cumstances, and all others that occurred between
Genoa and going on board the polacre, were pass-
ed over by his Learned Friends; and why ?
what, because they were of no importance ? Oh,
no ; not so ; but because it was not convenient to
them to advert to them. He could not so pass
over them, nor
,wquld their Lordships do so. Ire
must next call their Lordships' attention to what
passed when her Royal'Highness .went on board
the Clorinde,'and Capt. Pechell refused to sit at the
same table with Bergami. Th4conduct did Capt.
Pechell honour. He had seen.Bergami a menial
servant,and saw no good foundation for his advance-
ment; and therefore refused-to sit at table with
hint What had been-the conduct of her. Royal
Highness on this occasion ? If conscious of
innocence, she would have . said to Captain Pe-
chell—This individual is 'a
faithful servant of
mine, and for his faithful services I have advanced.
him; and, if it is no dishonour to me. that he
should sit down at my table, it is no dishonour to
you to sit with him. And if,.after this, Captain
Pechell had refused. to permit. him to sit at. the
same table, she would have. expressed her anger
and indignation, and
.her determination to inform
his superiors of the insult offered,to her.
.Initead.
of which, • rather than_ lwr '.favo.urite's •
feelings
should be hurt, she retireS.terself from the :Cap-
tain's' cabin, and contents .herself weith.the society
of Bergami, and his sister, . the Countess of
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to com-
ment on the evidence as. related, to, the transac-
..tions on board the polacre out, to Tunis, and af-
terwards to Ephesus'a.nd Utica ; and contended,
that the facts stated 'by 'Majocci and .Dumont,
were not at all contradicted, but rather confirtlVll,:
and that all tended to prove. the familiariOef,
passing between .the Princess- and Bergami. At
Ephesus (page 9.3), Majocci 'stated, that the din-
ner was prepared at a coffee-house, afterwards
taken to an old buildingiwhere her Royal highness

and Bergami dined alone, and were afterwards left
by themselves' alone. Mr. Hownam was after-
wards called to contradict this fact, but all which
Hownam could swear to, was the impression on
his mind. This, the Attorney-General con-
tended, was no contradiction to a person who
swore positively to a fact. So as to the reposing
under the same tent, it was said her Royal High-
ness was too much fatigued- to think of amorous
acts, that she wanted protection, and that no
harm could arise from her Royal Highness and
her menial male servant reposing under the same
tent. Why, if she was so much fatigued, would
not a female servant have been her best attend-
ant ? And would it now be contended, that be-
cause persons were dressed, no illicit intercourse
could take place ? Why, he would shew from
the travels of Dr. Holland, an authority which
he thought his Learned Friends would not dis-
pute, that persons in that country seldom or
never undressed, but reposed on sofas with the
greater part of their dress on. The Learned
Counsel then read a passage from Dr. Holland's
travels, stating the custom to be as he had de-
scribed, and then proceeded to cite several pas-
sages in the testimony of Dumont and Majocci, to
prove that Bergami did sleep under the same
tent with her Royal Highness on this journey,
and that no attempt had been made to contradict
them, although Marlette, the Countess of Oldi,
Schiavini, and others of her Royal 4lighness's
suite might have been called to contradict it, if
,it was capable of contradiction. He would ask,
how was adultery to be proved, if this was not
, proof? If it was to go forth to the female part of
society in this country, that males and females
might sleep under the same tent, or in the same
room, without being liable to censure; there
would be an end to all female delicacy; and
' he would undertake to say, adultery could
never be proved in this Country again. This
was the Aum case ; and he would ask any rea-
sonable man, if there could lie any fair doubt
of an adulterous intercourse having taken place
here ? But if it might be inferred here how much
more likely was it that the intercourse had been
continued on board the polacca ? But here, said
Mr. Denman, will you call this a tent ? this
was only a loose covering made of the awning of
the ship, and was not worthy of the name of a
tent ; but it appeared in the evidence that this
loose tent was fastened down to the deck with
ring bolts, and was closed during the night. A
great deal had been said as to the remuneration
to be given to the Captain and Mate of the po-
lacre, Gargiulo and Paturzo. It was well known
that foreign witnesses would not come over with-
out large remuneration : as a proof of this, he
would only allude to the milliner from Morge,
who acknowledged to have received 701., to have.
had 1001. deposited for her at a banker's, and
who confessed she still looked forward for fur-
ther remuneration. But the Mate and Captain,
it was said, had perjured themselves ; if so, then
why did they not callSchiavini to contradict them ?
for it was sworn that Schiavini was the person
L who ordered the tent to be closed when her Royal

Highness and Bergami were reposing under h
His Learned Friend had said he would not ex
pose the Countess of Oldi or Marietti, who might
le.nervous, to the torture of cross-examination ;
he'would not call others ..lest they, should be
tainted by the conspiracies of Baron Ompteda ;
but would either of these objections applyito
Schiavini ?—Was he too nervous to stand a cross-
examination ? Was he tainted with the conspi-
racies of Ompteda ? \Vas he a party to picking
locks, or to perjured testimony? It was trilling to
detain their Lordships with observations on these
i neon sistencies,or on the contradictions to be found
in Hownam's evidence. Whylvas it necessary that
'Bergami should sleep under the tent ? Why, said
Mr. Hownam, for the safety of her Royal Highness,
But why Bergami? Oh, because Bergami was
the fittest person. Why not Schiavini ? Oh, be-
cause Schiavini was/a land's-man. Well, so was
Bergami ; so that this reason fell to the ground.'
And he would ask, as he had before asked Mr.
Hownam—why was not the' Countess of Oldi
placed under the . tent instead of Bergami ?
He
would answer this question ; it was because her
Royal Highness could not do without the society
of Bergami. The Counsel on the other side said,
all the case for the Bill was rested on the belief
of Mr. Hownam. He denied that assertion ; the
belief of Mr. Hownam only corroborated the testi-
mony of the Captain, the Mate, Majocci, Dumont,
and others. To contradict the witnesses he had
named, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Hownam were called ;
but Mr. Flynn having broken down in cross-exa-
mination; and Mr. Hownam having let out too
much, his Learned Friends grew tired of evidence.
The case was abandoned, and for several days
their Lordships heard nothing of it. They were
amused only with inquiries after Rastelli and
Ruganti ; but the answer to the case was abaft.:
doned—it was determined not to answer it; they
gave up the testimony of the Countess of Oldi,
Variette, of Schiavini, of Hieronymus, and: of all.
the other witnesses who might have answered. it.
He would ask, under these circumstances, if. any
doubt could remain on the: minds of any one of
the adulterous intercourse having taken place on
board the polacre ? But if there was any doubt
reniaining,_ the fact of the'celebration of St.. Ba-
rtholomew's day, and the, union of 'his name with
that of her Royal Highness, would' remove it. So
as to the fact of taking the bath on board. It.was-
attempted to contradict... Dumont and Majocci"on
this subject by the evidence of Lieui, Flynn, who
swore that the tub was considerably too large to go
intOlier Royal Highness's room; but-of that unfor-
tunate_ man, he would., say, adverting to what he
sworee-as to the hand,7wrlting of the paper, .that
whether what he swore in that respect was. by, de-.
sign or othervvise,he..wasawitness not to be cred.4o)
his testimony wns'not to-be ,relied on. Sp as to
his account
_of- the light Penetrating the tent from
the'binnacle, Which Flynn swore to,:it was con-
tradicted.byillownam, who stated that the tent,
on.one occasion, when he entered- it, was in dark-
ness.: -But.wiiW respect to the bath, he cared
not in which room it was taken,' Whether in the
dining-room or sleeping-room cabin. If Dumont
and Majocci were believed; and they were not

contradicted, nergami was below when her
Royal Highness took the bath. This was suffi-
cient alone to establish a case against her Ma..
jesty ; and, if it was not true, Oldi and Mariette
might have been called to contradict the fact.
He had heard;-• with some surprise, that Ma.
jocci and Dumont were not to be credited ; and.

that the want of memory rendered it unnecessary
to attempt to examine any one in answer to them.
In answer to this, he would only say, look at the
testimony of several of the English witnesses, and.
consider how Majocci had been treated. His
Learned Friends had talked of the torture of
cross-examination, and the tone and look which
had been assumed by the Solicitor-General. Did.
his Learned Friends forget Mr. Brougham's man-
ner towards a 'witness ; was it so pleasant a thing
to be cross-examined by his Learned Friend ?
was his look so good humoured, and his man..
ner, under such circumstances, so pleasant.—(A.
laugh !)—And was it forgotten that poor Majocci
was under examination in chief a day and a
half ; that his cross-examination was as long ; and.
that he had been three times since cross-examin-
ed ; and. was it surprising if he was a little
alarmed. Poor Mr. Flynn was of a different
mould to Majocci ; he was to be pitied ; he was
nervous ; he was overpowered by the heat of the
room ; and every allowance was to be made for
him. Majocci had been called back, and question-
ed as to conversations with Mrs. Hughes, Mr.
Williams, Mr. Johnson, and others, in stage-
coaches, and elsewhere ; he had denied them with
the expression of Non vii ricordo. How was it
that Bisette, the lacquey de place, who escorted
Majocci about London, was not called ? How was
it that Mrs. Hughes was not called ? Why was
not Mr. Johnson, who travelled in a coach with
Majocci, called to prove that he had not spoken
the truth ? and, last of all, why were not the whole
of the female part of the family of the Adams's
called, whom Majocci wished to marry ? Why
were they not called to contradict him ?—(Laugh-
ing.)—The reason was, that they had seen Ma-
jocci, and not one of them could identify him as
the person with whom they held these memo-
rable and extraordinary conversations. He
must next refer their Lordships to the evi-
dence of Carrington, who was by nature a Gen-
tleman, as his Learned Friend had said ; but, he
believed, on referring their Lordships to the evi-
dence of this Gentleman, they '.vould think with him
that he was a witness that was not to be believed.
The Attorney-General then proceeded to point
out the difference between the testimony of Car-

rington and Carlo Forti, as to the distance from
Rome to Rufinelli, the description of the road,
and other circumstances which took place there
on the journey to Rome ; but the most important
contradictions in his testimony were, his answers as
to his service on board the Poictiers, and no other

ship in his Majesty's service, and his negative to
that question, and as to his being rated as a Mid-
shipman, &c. ; all which answers he afterwards
endeavoured. to explain away, by saying, he un-
derstood the questions related to his service un-
der Sir J. Beresford, lie also stated, that he had
a long conversation with Sir J. on the subject of
his quitting the service ; and that he stated his rea-
son for wishing to quit the service was, his want of
friends and money. SirJ.Beresford had been called,
' and that Hon. Officer declared he had no such
conversation with him, but understood Carrington
was desirous of quitting the sea-service to enter
into that of Sir W. Gell. The course pursued on
this occasion was an extraordinary one ; he meant
one witness being called to support another. No
Counsel would have been allowed to do such a

thing ; he believed it was done at the suggestion
of one of their Lordships, who might consider
that course necessary to elicit the truth.
Earl GREY said, he was the person who had
suggested the calling SiK J. Beresford. Their
Lordships had agreed in the suggestion, as pro-
per; and he could not suffer an assertion so un-
founded to pass, as that-of the Learned Counsel,
that he had called Sir J. Beresford to support
the credit of Carrington.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL intended to impute
blame to no one ; on the contrary, he rejoiced
that Sir John had been called, as it had enabled
their Lordships to detect Carrington's testimony,
and to obtain a true statement of facts from the
Hon. Officer who had been called. Sir J. Beres-
ford had denied, in positive terms, that any such
conversation had passed between him and Car-
rington ; and added,, if Carrington had stated
his reason for wishing to quit the service was
want of money, only, he shOuld have advanced it
he-- .to him, as had done to others in similar situa-
tions, by' way of loan,. till :he could have re-
paid
• [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then read the evi-
dence 'of Carrington, and pointed out what he
said were apparent contradictions, and thenasked
if the evidence of this witness was to be credited,
and if Majocci was not more worthy of belief ?
In IVhjocci's evidence he said there were no
contradictions ; Carrington's was full. Carrington
swore that Majocci toldrhirn about Baion Omp-
teda, and that he threatened to kill him. Ma-
jocci swore he knew.nothing of the Baron. After
the inconsistency aqd contradiction in Carriug-
ton's evidence, I ask your Lordships if he is to be
believe& in preferonce to Majocci
,At thi period oftha A.ttorney-General's speech,
their Lordships,'adiourne4 till to-morrow morn-
ing, when the ;Learuga,Viounsel will resume his
address 4
;
,
.

A circumstance 'Otd*re_d at Southampton, on
Sunday se'nnight, Which had nearly proved fatal :
a gentierriauwho haibeo ikk tAiings here during
the, sewn, arose sufl4.olY4 frpm.his bed about 4
,o'clock,:and ran haStily, diOymj,talrs, shutting the
door after-him, and rnatleV the water-side, where
he plunged in ; his di..lttesSecllady followed him to
the shore,,and intreated. him to return, but could not
,pievail.. Fortunately his progress was much im-
:•pedeil by 'MO and werds,and the Custom-house
boatsucceeded:ln securing him after an effort of
nearly two hours, during which time he refused
every assistance. The unfortunate Gentleman
(who is a Colonel in the Army) was labouring
under a temporary derangement.