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

toss Oldi called ? Then; my Lords, as to the cha-
racter, the merits, and the qualifications of the
-person raised to such pre-eminence and conside-
ration, how are we to account for such an extra-
- erdinary promoticin ? 'There is a great difference
between the case of a person promoted after a life
rent in labour, in fidelity, and in the meritorious
discharge of important services, either in the
church, at the bar, or in the army, and the case
under consideration.. It is one Of the great bless-
ings of the Constitution tinder which we live, that
the highest situationsin the country are accessible
to those v hose merits, and whose talents, render
them worthy of pre-eminence. But that view of
the subject is wholly inapplicable to the case of
the individual alluded to—who has not only.him-
self been raised to this high distinction, but every
member of whose family, with one exception
only, has shared in the prosperity which has at-
tended him. Look, my Lords, to the evidence of
'Mr. Craven, ' Sir W. (4.11, and Sicard. Sicar4
who gave his testimony in a manner, which I think
did hid) great credit, states to your Lordships the
manner in which this man entered her Majesty's
seri ice, and. the .nature of the advantages he was
tanelit to expect. Ile told your Lordships that
g.arni was engaged as a courier, to .go merely
to Naples, with a promise of recommendation,' if
his conduct was approved," but nothing more. Mr.
-.Craven's evidence upon this point was, that Ber-
lgarni was told he might hope to be promoted, and
Sir 'William dell, that he might hope to be gra-
, dually advanced. But, my Lords, was this all
that happened to this man—did he remain in that
state of humble hope and expectation ? I • ask
your Lord Ships whether in the world there was
ever such an instance of promOtion as this case pre-
sents,—where the whole family of this man, with
one exception;and that his wife, is raised to dis-
tinction and affluence? The conclusion to be
draws from Such a state of things, I leave your
Lordships to judge. You find from the pro-
• ceedings in support of 'the Bill, that there are
eight or nine witnesses, every one of whom, with
reference to the facts to which they de-
posed, remains Uncontradicted ; and there is no
impeachment of their general character, or their
particular conduct, unless you act upon bare sus-
picion, suggested in' argument and observation.
There appearS, 'however, in point of evidence,
no ground upon which you can safely act in say-
ing, that they are not to be believed. Why, then
these witnesses Speak to acts of familiarity, which
undoubtedly in many instances may exist, with-
out any act of adultery having been committed,
but which, when coupled with the opportunities
afforded for the commission of the act, from the
contiguity of bed rooms and other circumstances,
are.Stichas must 'lead the mind of every man of
plain sense and common understanding, to the
irresistible conclusion, thaf'a criminal intercourse
had taken place. This inference must always be
drawn under such circumstances as have been
proved in evidence. But, my Lords, I wish to
know why is not Bergami himself produced ?
It is said, he cannot be, produced. That I deny.
I say he might be produced ; and in the case that
has been alluded to in the course of this inquiry,
if _ )I.V_LOrd S. NMI
ravear, where the
adulterers themselves have been called to prove
the adultery. Then, I ask you, what are you
not to infer, not only from the absence of every
member of this family, and of all other witnesses,
to prove innocence, but from the absence of a
man who, if he were innocent, has imposed upon
him an obligation to which no individual was ever
before subjected—an obligation imposed upon
him by all the mighty favours he has received—
by all the 'circumstances of benefit he has en-
joyed—an obligation, of.a nature the most trans-
cendent, to come before your Lordships, as a
witness on behalf of..his Illustrious Mistress ?
If then he might come—and if he has this
powerful obligation pressing u'pon him to
come—l ask, why he did not come ? There
are many 'circumstances in the case to which
I have not alluded, and to which I do not mean
to allude, because, if youare not satisfied by those
leading points to which I have referred, I do not
hesitate to say that you ought not, to pass the
Bill. j I say nothing of Sinigaglia, for though 1
cannot reconcile all the testimony of Sacchi with
that of Carlo Forti and Vassali, still I cannot
conclude that it was false, and therefore dis-
miss it altogether from. my consideration. So
also with respect to Trieste, the facts connected
with which were capable of being contradicted,
though they werenot met by contradiction. But
when I see a person called to speak to facts, 'and
when I hear him distribute those facts through
the space of six days, which must seem to have
taken place according to other statements, in a
day and a half, I cannot come to any conclusion
upon his 'evidence. You have also before you
Barbara Kress, a:witness who, as far as her man-
ner goes, appears to be entitled to credit; she
speaks positively as to what passed on the second
day of their arrival" at Carlsruhe; and has not
been contradicted, except you look to what Vas-
sali has said at the close 'of the case, when lie
winds up with an account of what passed in the
saloon. That witness is liable to the same obser-
vation . Which I have made upon others, his me-
mory being. so -accurate as to what passed there,
. but scarcely extending to any thing else. In this
view of the case, taking the depositions of all the
witnesses together, referring to the extraordinary
and rapid
,promotion of Bergami and his family,
the whole of whom he brought round tier Royal
Highness, with the exception of his wife, look,
ing to what passed in the polacca and at other
places, I should ,feel that I was not • doing my
duty if I refrained from stating my belief that
an adulterous intercourse has taken place. The
principle on which I proceed, and by which, as
it appears to me, your Lordships are bound to be
governed, is this—to infer from all the circum-
stances what any reasonable man would infer,
though the fact itself could 'not be proved. 'Whe-
ther your Lordships determine that the case
has been made out or not, my belief is as I have
stated. One word more and I have done. As
to what has passed out of doors I shall take no
notice of it, because I cannot be supposed here