The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-04 00:00:00

Cussin
\vas, preamble•Bill,•,and:When it
to intention to the ,evidence necessary
ha Support this Bill, to compare the evidenoe that
d:0 been promised .to support it, and the _ovi-
b,eee that has: been brought to support it, have
litliescurnaatutal;ked7by indisposition ; for he would by
eloquence have shewn the -imperious
he.revss,ity of this Bill being thrown out.]—I say
havei'pßsty,s- conduct has. not been. proved
,to
13,4 teen licentious and indecent in public_,and
and the.; Preamble is unsupported.
Lordship then read the Preainble of
.the
ilk
itife-IMY Lords, ISay, that it is not to be fairly
(erred, that because her Majesty raised Ber-
aao;) and took his relatives into her Service, that
tllariterY Was cf.mmited by the parties. No honest
b.ll-„,ean say that it is a fair and, just conclusion.
it 14°rds, I admit 'that Bergami was .a.courivi,
%it is in evidence that his family 'was reduced,
t 11
aa„`l,t 'his.sister, the Countess of Oldi,
to an Italian Nobleman, and that ivlien
situation' was altered, he had shewu
the.ts:lf every • why ' wor(by of
.it: I agree that
dicia-iNist not only be moral suspicion, but ju-
tide l'roof of thr adultery, before w e can de-
licin,';ainst the Queen. ' Impropriety and sUs-
atio-on- are nut enough, and cannot take the situ-
gaol! judicial .proof. The elevatiOn of Ber-
wa:l„rnaY excite suspicion, but, my Lords, there
ter% that distance between the Princess and her
ttiniant, as fir as the base of a mountain from its
'There is 'lesS suspicion created by a
ti„ ,- °1 low origin or situation being in the situa
which ?Bergaini was placed. than .there
sitolli`i, bety a man of rank, for a man of low
atid-at`°(l would no more dare to take an improper
slndecent liberty than the meanest wretch on
taro
" would think 'of asSaultin!, a servant.—
f(1 Person 'of rank, I say, would have excit-
is gjt'ater suspiCiOn ; and his low situation,
ra'ti 'n evidence, in Ju avor. of her Majesty
(I,rlf?. than otherwise. The Noble -.Lord ( Lau-
tvid` alo commented with great severity on the
the ence of Lieut. Hownam, and yet, :he said,
(LaeAdence of Majocci was not contradicted.—
of ughter.)—My Lords, his. evidence was full
herl°ntradiction.—[His Lordship showed a num-
ilkfef instances where he gave false and contra-
tv'a)rY evidence, and then read the following
' ift,e"e•]—" Yea made the beds ?
e‘r,,e there sheets on them ? Non mi ricordo."
kr "here did your felloW-servants (the livery-
' \Ants). sleep ? Non riCordo."---My Lords,
Ivehic,°,uhl not say if there were sheets on the beds
4,11'" he made, and he could not tell where his
°w-servants-slept. But, 'my Lords, lie could
titrto hearing a creaking in the bed under the
ti-throurrh the deck of the polacre, and he could
g-sferi be the meaning lie wished your Lordships to
1, Pon that noise. I was disgusted to hear the fel-
'
, ",Iv';bis describing the use of a bottle sickened me,
ari-t was stui)rised that the Counsel for the Bill
1.14311.1t1 press such a filthy question. My Lords,
ai9cei was asked " Do you know a person
a'ned 'Hughes?" He answered-Non mi ricordo
4 ;
4,4;11 he afterwards admitted that he knew him,
f th'y were, such great .and, intimate
\'‘'ends, that he used to call him " Brother 1"
i‘es net this contradiction clear and decisive ?
,s! Lords, the four principal witnesses, Dumont,
to-7hl) Rastelli, and Majocci, have been proved
').lc? unworthy of the least credit. They are
all discarded servants, they were discharged in
-17 p is
and all the Proof of suspicion of
t guilt
ri°,h,,"ned to the time they were ,in her Majesty's
tee
;- not a breath of slander, no one had
lis, lien'
even an impropriety since these wretches
service. These creatures were all turn-
4ft away," too, for n'ilsconduct, and two of them
t,"_,they had possession of important secrets.
d'if-°". God, nay Lords, is it likely, is it to he cre-
ti.'cl, that a woman like her Majesty, supposing
t(1:11t she bad been guilty of the conduct imputed
t.a'iers that she would have discharged those ser-
v„t4s in whose boSoms WI), important secrets
oftri_e lodged, when at the same time, she knew
she
existence of the Milan Commission—When
knew that she was surrounded by spies, and
rs°lls endeavouring to entice her domestics to
Pr against her life and character. It would
soeeilY to suppose that she would have acted
madly. I admit the possibility that she might
Oev madly.e done so; but as you draw inferences against
dl!' in some cases, I say you must in this instance
th4w the inference in her faVour, and that
th:, witnesses are perjured. Dumont admitted
a,;"' she was discharged for saying that which
false she admitted it in her evidence, and
or her letters; she also admitted the justice
•ouer discharge ; 'she admitted her conduct
Sacchi had been improper ; ,she admitted
tet letter, ,their
connexion had been criminal ;
lienshe apologizes, and says, that it was
passion that had ruined -her. Can any
e relieve
this woman's evidence ? She swore
thatander Majesty's dress at the ball was indecent,
did '`,_r William Gell swears it was not; and so
Set,nets, whose evidence cannot be excepted.
of— also said, that Bergami was three quarters
an hour in' the Princess's roam at Naples,
Then She was changing her dress. If this had
not been disproved completely by Sir W. Cell,
Itte°4l(l not, have believed the statement ; for if
e, Parties were sleeping together nightly, it was
hotn likely:that they should take that opportunity
to
he be together for such a purpose, especially that
Iv! Majesty should place Dumont at the door to
tilitness her guilt. The statement was evidently
Swore
of the tine de chambre.' Majocciti that her Majesty was present when Dr.
14d 11and dressed the foot of Bergami. Dr. Hol-
swore it was not true. It was said by the
Noble E
(Lauderdale) that this fact was nit,.
vevltant ; 1 say it is important ; for it was given
ri evidence to Shew the familiarity of the parties;
evid if it was unimportant, why was it given in
til„ 'nee at all ? The fact, my Lords, is this ;
witnesses have been brought to prove too
nut •eli
and they have said that which has refuted
ttt theirl own evidence. Sacchi swore to the dis-
roaue
e at Dover : and he' swore that was the
ealis„
0,
his changing his name ; yet it turned
t but tnat the disturbance did not take place till
he rude
after that period. He also swore that
• rude up to the, carriage of her Majesty,

between Rome end Senegagliai -arLe merning,
and - undrew the curtains, and found her and
Bergami in a situation which I will not de-
scribe.. It has been proved by a number., of
witnesses that this statement was entirely false.
Carlo Forti had sworn that -Sacchi was not the
courier on the -journey, but himself. Vassali con-
firms him, and Col. 0 liveri corroborates both ; and,
what is. more important than all, they prove that it
was not an Italian carriage in which her Majesty
rode, but an English :one, in which there were no
cortaios, but glasses, and blinds. Therefore) my
Lords, it was a natural impoSsibility that Sacchi
should have undrawn the curtains as he stated.---
My Lords, -I. have shewn ,that the evidence of
.thcs,, corrupt witnesses must be thrown aside as
unworthy of the least credit whatever. A Noble
and Learned Lord has :said, that, setting aside
these evidencesa there is sufficient testimony that
is not suspicious, that is unimpeached, to satisfy
him of the adultery having;been committed. 111. y
Lords, there is not a jot or tittle of evidence to
be found against the Queen that is not full of sus-
picion. Where is this unimpeached evidence ?
Where can we find it ? Is it the person who
swore to the Adam and Eve scene, who has been
completely contradicted ?. Is itaihelsoatman, who
swore to Bergami and lier Majesty kissing on the
.Lake_of Gomo before a doaep or fourteen boats
men, -vlto has been contradicted
.by a person
who he admitted was on board tit the time, and
this persota was nearer to the parties said
to be kissing than the first witness. But, said-
my Lord Lauderdale, the witness for the Queen
was blind, his eyes were so had. that he could
not see the kissing. My Lords, it is strange that
the Noble Lord (Lauderdale) could see nothing
in favour of the accused, and all against her.
But it turns out, and the Noble Lord may set it,
if he looks at the evidence, that this man's eyes
were not bad till two years after this transaction,.
when her Majesty was in the boat on the Lake
of Como.
,His Lordship, seems inclined to-give
credit to any- one but'a credible witness. He will
believe bricklayers, gardeners, boat-skippers,
chambermaids, lacqueys, and discarded servants,
however improbable their evidence may be, but
he will give no credit to the Oath- of an English
witness. He will believe the lowest and filthiest
rabble that ever- were brought together, and
will not give credit to those to whose evidence no
exception can justly be taken. Caucati, the
bricklayer, says that he was at the Villa d'Este,
and his men were waiting for work, and he went
to look for the architect, and by some accident
he got into the house of her Majesty, and I be-
lieve into her Majesty's room, and found her and
Bergami sitting on a sofa, in a very indecent situ-
ation.. Can any one of your' Lordships believe
this incredible story ? what business had he in
the house ? . and _if he did go in, is it to be sup-
posed that he would `not have seen some of the
suite of her Majesty before he got to her cham-
ber ? It is not to be credited, especially when
we see how witnesses have been hired to come to
swear to that millet' was false. We have 'it
in evidence that Ruganti, who has not been
cailecl as a- witness,- was the person wit° was
sent by the Milan Commission to fetch Rasfelli.
This Rastelli swore to seeing the hands of her
Majesty in the situation I shall not repeat ; this
Ruganti, we have it in evidence, was the person
who went to Pomi, and Offered him .-;ewards,
make a man of him, if he would only. swear to
something against the Queen. Poini has swore,
that Ruganti asked him to swear that he saw
Bergarni putting his hand up her Majesty's pet-
ticoats when she was riding oa an ass. After this
proof of subornation of perjury, can any man put
confidence in any one of the witnesses who .has
sworn to facts of which he was the,,only person
besides the party accused who witnessed them ?
My Lords, I cannot give credit to one of them
some have been proved to have been hired to
swear falsehoods, and all possibly may have
been hired, and the fair, inference to be drawn
is, that they have. A fact strongly corroborative
of it is this—they hare sworn that they told
no person of what they had witnessed till after
they went before the Milan Commission ; and
is it too much- to -say that they were engaged
to swear what they have done at your Lord-
ships' Bar ? Why should they keep these facts
concealed in their bosom ? No, my Lords, the
truth is, they heard that a fortune might be made
by swearing against the life and honour of a
cruelly-injured woman, and they went and offer-,
ed to swear to those facts which never, took
place.—(Cheers.)--7They knew they should be,
well paid for what they swore.—(Hear, hear !)
Why is this proof confined to the lowest rab-
ble among the wretches who have come to your
Lordships' Bar ? Not one has been brought
who is at all respectable, or is deserVing of
credit. How is it, my Lords, that the Queen
should never act with indecency before any
others, except a dozen boat-skippers' or a
number of bricklayers, and never before a person
of condition. Oh, says the Attorney-General,
she took care never to demean herself' so before
a person of condition. I say, my Lords,'a person
of condition would not have exposed what he
saw : would, I ask, the Noble Lord (Lauderdale)
have been a witness ? No ; and her Majesty
must know that persons of low condition were
easily induced by money to swear in some cases
What was false a and could she doubt that they
would hesitate to swear what was true ? But it
never did take place ; it is false ; and I cannot give
any credit'to such evidence.—[His Lordship then
entered into an argument,shewing the improbability
of the Queen sleeping with Bergarni under the tent
on board the polacre, for the purpose of commit-
ting adultery ; when, if Bergami had slept in the
dining-room, he could have mounted the ladder and
entered the hatchway at any time, unobserved.]
My Lords, it has been said,that there was mystery
in the case, as to where Bergami slept; there
was none. Mr. Williams admitted where be slept,
in his speech ; and, when Captain Hownam was
examined, he was told to speak that only which
he knew of his own knowledge. He was asked,
" Where did Bergami steep?"—" I do not
know." My Lords, he did not know of his own
knowledge. So was the case with Lieut. Flynn :

he-did not kriw'ot his own -istsdaVledge and he
.was never asked as to -his belief. There was no
proof of .adultery being committed under the
tent, and no such- conclusion could be &awn ;
.there might be suspicion in some minds ; but that
must not be :sUbstitoted fcj legal proof.—[His
Lordship then commented upon the.evidence of
Gargiulo and Paturzo, the Captain and Mate of
the polacca. They were corrupt and purchased
witnesses.: He did .not credit: a word about the
sitting on the gun on deck.; or about his sending
away Paturio, lest his morals should be contami-
nated; and he could not ,find the Queen guilty,
upon -suspicious testinionys—upon the purchased
oaths of Italian skippers—Bat, my Lords, sup-
pose I put it bypoihetically suppose that this
evidence could be creditedsuppose that:a single
act of litsullery had taken place—would- that be
sufficient to satifv" your Lordships that this Bill
should be passed?—No ; her conduct must be •
proved, to be in public disgraceful, lewd, licen-
tious, and degrading, before the Preamble of the.
-Bill was.proved. Much has been said about the
disgrace. bronght.upon- this country by the eleva-
tion of Bergami. What. disgrace ? Is it not
in evidence that -this individual so conducted
himself as to attract the notice of persons of
the -highest_ rank ? And .Was he not received
hi ever, Ceurt of Europe • which• the Queen
visited, except that from, syhieh the influence
of,* UritisiieMinister contrived to expel him.
I shall now,. my Lords, proceed to another part
of the subject—the policy of passing this Bill' of
Pains and Penalties. And here I cannot help re-
marking, that if the Queen had been tried upon
an impeachment, when the Bill came up from the
Commons every •Peer would be obliged to vete,-
by. laying his hand upon his heart, and saying
Guilty or Not Guilty; Had this been ,the case,
I would 'have said with the_ Lord Chancellor,
"Be just, and fear not." If the facts sworn to
by the witnesses for this prosecution have not
been proved so fully as to warrant a verdict of
Guilty upon the question of guilt or innocence.,
how much more careful should we be from every
consideration of policy, not to commit ourselves.
I am .not a man, either in my, temper, habits, or
diposition, to advise the House to desist from any
fear of popular clamour; my whole life will prove
that I am not; but we are here legislating for
the Public, and they have a right to be consult-
ed. I will not deny that improper means hale
been used to excite thissclamour, and I heartily
wish many things. of this nature had not taken
place. The ill-advised Letter to the King, and
the Answers to the Addresses, have always met
with my decided reprobation; but because I
condemn them, are. I to agree to the passing of
this Bill ? Do not deceive yourselves, my Lords,
by believing that only popular clamour is against
it. The' Noble Lord on the cross bench has in-
deed said this ; but I should like to know his
authority for.such restatement. It is not the rabble •
or thernob, and here I would say that .we ought
not, bythe use of such epithets,to irritate the public
mind, 'for every day gives some new proof Of the
separation of the higher from the hisser classes,
whosstra thus deprived- of- their natural protec-
tors, but all that is: irtuous, all that is wise, all
that is honest in the community, is opposed to
this Bill of Pains and Penalties. This, my
Lords, is a consideration which ought, to have
its full weight.; and with such knowledge of
the feelings of the country, how can we pass it
under the false pleA of state expediency ? With-
out going too far in my ideas, upon this subject, I
can say, that the quality of your decision must •
rest upon public respect and public opinion. The
facts of the, case, my Lords, may be doubtful or
suspicious, if• you please ; but do they amount
to a conviction of guilt ? If they do not,
let me implore you, without any unworthy ex-
,ception in favour of the other House, to
ask yourselves how can you with any honour
or ' safety proceed, after the opinion which
has been pronounced by the Representatives
of the people. Suppose, my Lords, you should
press the second reading of this Bill, and upon it
should be'found that some of those Noble Peers
who have usually voted with Ministers, without
being party men, and • who have therefore much
weight in the public mind, are in the minority,
what will be said to a majority composed only of
the Ministers and the :Prosecutors ?—My Lords,
can any man, with his knowledge of the merits
of this case, and his thorough conviction that it.
would pass in no other place, conscientiously vote
for the second reading ?• There may be some who
think they could, but I think very differently.
But if, in the majority of the second reading,
there should ,be found some Peers who have
never attended the House, and others, particu-
larly, who nevets-attended during the defenceew hat
would the Public say to such a majority.? 'Will
such a decision have no influence before ' the
House of Comm Ons ? And if it should lead to a
rejection there, how frightful and fatal will it be.
to see the two branches of the Legislature so di-
vided. But if it is not rejected there, what will
be the consequence ? This degrading and dis-
gusting proceeding must again torment the world
for months, perhaps for years—public business
must be suspended—the morals .of the people
must be perverted,. and the whole country in-
volved in confusion. What opinion would.be form-
ed of us from such a proceeding ? We should he
the-laughing-stock of all Europe ; Ina this would
be the lesser evil of the two. The rejection of
the Bill would be the danger. I have heard
it stated, that certain Peers have pronounced an
opinion, that if the Bill can be got 'through a
second reading, it will be amended in a third. .:1`
cannot compliment the Nohie Earl at the head
of the Treasury for such a trick, and I firmly-tse-
lieve that he has nevetsproposed,it ; but I will say,
that if vou pass it in a second reading, it will be
your duty to pass it through a third also.; the
Mischief-will be all done by the second reading.
A stigma will be fixed upon the character of the
Queen as far as this House has the power to h,
it 4 and as to the cant of altering the preamble,
svhich, I suppose, will be called another advantage
to the Queen, how do we know that her Majesty
will not spurn the-mitigation ? If she had been
fairly tried by the laws of her Country, -and, the

proof of the charges bad failed; she would be en tie
tledeo au acquittal ; but here, having failed ie proof
of the indictment, the prosecutors propose to go
into a Committee, and there to suit the indictment:.
..
to the proof. eI f they do this, however, with
what face. can -they deny to the Queen the right
of being beard again.? If I were a supportereef
..
the Bill, and had once committed myself as. tosa
second reading, no person on. earth should com-
pel_ me. to abandon the DivorceeClause, which
it would, I understand,
,be . the object: of the
Committee to expunge from the next Bill.---
To pass the Bill, _with, the exception, of this •
clause,
,would .be - not. only to. degrade the
Queen but , the King also ; for it would be
declaring that although she .was unworthy of
reigning, she was worthy of being the King's wife.
I repeat, my Lords, that if you allow this Bill to
be read a second time, you have done all the
mischief that you can do, and if you should leave
the point so unsettled, do you thick the House
of Commons-will be stationary. The stigma will
be fixed upon- the Queen ;. Wet she will have a
right, in the face of a second reading, to the pri-
vileges and dignities of a Queen, and an. ample
provision must he made for her. As a Legislator, 1 .
cannot- see, therefore, the policy-of placing a stigma
upon the King's wife, who will still remain Queen.
of England...My Lords, I have ever been a friend
to the rights of the people ; but I have never been
the friend of licentiousaese. When I have ope
posed the undue extension. of the. power of the
Crown, it has been not because 1 was averse to the
splendour of. the Throne, but because I desired
to see it exhibited only for the honour of the
Country. .At times :excluded from poieer, at
others invited to partake of it, I have always en-
deavoured es] steer
.a constitutional course ; and in
steering this Coinseen° man has been more expos-
ed to popular reproach : but I will still persevere,
and I. sincerely hope that every one of your Lord,-
ships will so act upon this occasion as to hand down
to your children the character of an honest man.
You are surrounded, my Lords, by miseries and •
difficulties, but you will overcome the. worst of
them by adopting the course which is prescribed
by a sense of justice. I can truly say, my Lords,
that no man came into this House, in the origin
of the -proceedings, with greater prejudices
against the Queen than I did, and , I thought it
impossible not 'to be -.compelled to give a vote
against her, however reluctant to my. wishes ; •
but,.after giving to the whole course of the exa-
mination the most minute attention, I am prey
pared, both upon the charges and upon the
ground of expediency, to vote that this Bill shall
not be read a second. time. 1 can lay my hand
upon my heart, and conscientiously and fear-
lessly say, Not. Content.---Illis Lordship now
sat downe after having spoken for three hours.] .
Lord Liveepoor, said, the- speech which they
had just heard combined , two questions, namely,
as to the guilt of the Queen, and the expediency
of passing this Bill. This might involve their
Lordships in great difficulties; but, notwith-
standing• the difficulty, he nrust support the
Bill. The question to be considered now was,
whether this preamble. had been so far proved
as to justify the second' reading of the 13111 ? As
to any agreement on this subject, be knew of
none. The next questiOn was, whether the
Bill should be. read a second- time ? As, to
the Consequences arising out of such a mea,
sure, he could not now consider them ; not
because he undervalued- them, but because he
considered this as-not the proper -time to discuss
them. The time for doing so would have been
on the 19th of August, wheu the subject, with all
its bearings; was before them. Having entertain-
ed the question, however, they having allowed ,
the Counsel' to join issue—having heard the evi-
dence fully through, it was now due to themselves,
to the country, and to the Queen, that they Should
come to a decision upon it. With respect to the al-
tering the preamble,that would be a subject for con-
sideration in the Committee. ,He should contend,
however, that no difficulty could arise in that
respect, as it was'custoinary in Courts of Justice
to find a- verdict of Guilty on some counts of the
indictment, and of acquittal on others. The No-
ble Lord had asked him whether, if he could have
compared the proof with, the opening, he would
ever have proposed this Bill. He would answer,
he should have done so ; and further, he would
now desire no Noble Lord to support this
Bill who did not conscientiously believe the
I adultery proved beyond a doubt. He was ready
to acknowledge there was contradictory evidence
on this subject ; so - 'there was in all great
causes. Let their Lordships look to the Douglas
Cfi'MC, to the Anglesea case, and to all other great
cases; and they would find it so; but here he
would desire their Lordships to give her Majesty
the benefit of doubt, wherever doubt should exist;
and allowing her that advantage, if he did not
shew herMajeaty guilty beyond the possinility of '
doubt he was ready to give up the Bill altogether.
A Noble Friend of his had regretted that this
case was not proved by English witnesses. He
had the same cause. for regret ; but how was
it possible it should be so, when the Princess
of -Wales took especial care never to have as
English servant, or person about her, with
the exception of one person ? Was it possi-
ble then, to have other witnesses ? But it
was alsO objected, that the evidence were all
discharged .servants.- 11e-was ready to allow that
discarded servants seere a description of witnesets
who ought to be looked at es ith suspicion; but
the accused had the power of negativing their evi-
dence, by the testimony of the servants who re-
mained in her Royal highness's family stithroull. lie
would not detain their Lordships by going gh
all the evidence; but he week), for the fairjudg-
ing of this 'ease, take Dumont, the discharged ser--
who Owed. every thing
vant, and Lt. Howie's], to
her Majesty, and compare them send he would ask-
whether Durnont was not confirmed in every cir-
cumstance in which itwas possible she could be con-
firmed. by Ilownam ; and indeed Hownam's testi..
mon y, in most cases, pressed heavier on her Royal
Highness than Dumont's did. It was unneces-
sary fot him to advert to the scenes which took
place at Naples. If he was to judge on the evi-
, dente as related to these transactions) he was