The Sun.
London, England, 1820-10-27 00:00:00

is U`-t
TIC!
t►c 39'
I 1116

' • , . • . • • , . . .. ~ .
but 'C.:O-'111(1! not tell whether they .ivete the Voices '
of mitt or women. Why perjurers who have
Pue deep into falsehood occasionally stop short
'l'd express doubts, is not for me to say. but,
Qay Lords, is the charge brought here against the
ueers at all reasonable ? The Queen was tra-
thling itt the night in a hot country, so fatigued
tat she could hardly sit upon her horse, and
taking two. hours rest under a tent ; and I would
ask, if there is a man whose mind is so warped
„s a° suppose, that in these two.short hours, and
"tier those Circumstances, she could have had
al'Y idea of adultery ? I f there be such a man, I
Pity Ills understanding. He would now proceed
.t
° say a word or two on • those scenes on which
sru much time had already been spent; he al-
luded to the polacre scenes. And he begged
`vier- Lordships to bear_ in : mind,, that he
vas entitled to say that the Queen of
'Hgland entered that polatre
,'unstained ; un-
bP°tted, uncontarhinated, and free from even a
here
• of suspicion. The Learned Doctor
ere went over the evidence relating to the ar-
„,iaugetaaits made in the polacre previously to
ti,evalluYal Highness coming on board, and eon-
tihued that all% the subsequent alterations were
he necessary consequences of the altered cir-
'ainstances of their situation. The awning was
rrst erected in consequence of, the stench arising
1,'41 the cattle the were taken On board at
rihnis and stowed in the hold. He therefore got
,(1 ''f the saignia arising from that circumstance..
.6 Wai said then, that under the same tent slept
tiergatni for six or seven weeks, but extorted .as
~ le, evidence of _ Hownam , had been, and taking . a
el, his belief from his own hearsay, he (Dr.
t'°'uington) would say, that never was convic-
it.);l founded upon such evidence.—But (said
Th. • Lushinaton), I will not appeal to your own
Ni-1143 on this ground •; in the name of my Royal
13:stress, 1 diaciairn and abandon- it. Giant that
zei'arg;nii slept under the tent--I acknowledge it,
hoar I. justify it. With respect to the tent on
1,., a. ship, in which such scenes of guilt had
li'-al,l said: to have been committed, it was posi-
sLY a misnomer to call it a tent ; it should •
itic-thY be considered and spoken of as an awn-
've' extending-over the whole breadth of the
av„el ; so loosely- was it constructed, so slightly
Ei"s it erected, that it was- not even calculated to
yt(lter persons under it from the blasts of Hea,
1e.,7.1 in the evidence of Lieut. Hownam, the fa-
~Y with- which this tent might be opened, was
.
ti'''e'allY-pointed out to their Lordships' considers-
°h' Not only was it sworn that there existed
04,i
it ''`iitlicultv in opening it, but Lieut. Flynn actually •
'ultened it, by putting aside the canvas. Next i
sets to lie. remembered, that there were two
ait:iwus at the helm, and ten men on watch every
1,..5."1-, near this much talked of tent. Let it not
tie, f°rgotten that the hatchway was open.;- that
aa, hatahea also were open, and that they we-re
tC'er the awning ; that Lieut. Hownam believes
It'at the Qaeen .and Bergami never undressed.
11- was true that the witness Garguillo thought
. ti" reutarrikaa•d the hatchway being closed ; but
fulS thought of Gargalli° was • proved to have ma
1,-°4(latiou in. tri•ith by the evidence which had
tt' 1 given.. Lieut. Ilownato distinctly stated
), at ha' nevera.reinembered the hatchway to have
ah'''''' closed... It was a. very material fact, also, :
tilat a light was constantly burnt in.this tent, un-
,,,r it Was coasidered dangerous to have a light
IL anY sort on deck, as it exposed them to the
1)-: g"/ of being- attacked by pirates. Then, and
l'i". till Own,' was this light 'dispensed with.
',-`,‘v I°'-'ci had ventured to assert, that in his cabin
liehilt- heard the creaking of a bed abover
; and it was very clear, from. the manner in
ta"ch this Tart of the evidence was submitted to
a;f.*lr Lordships, what it was wished they should
a‘..*:' was the cause of this creaking. Was it not
Craordinary--was it not sufficient to prove the
s'43" falsehood of this I\lajpcci, that no other per-
-3l' could hear this creaking, which he swore had
t°lisfinctly caught his ear?, There were ten
a'4,-,then, two Steersmen, and the captain, but
jaae of them had heard any such noise. Was it
li ••' was it rational, to suppose that guilt would
a.eal;erpetrated in this manner, where detection
qi-1,114 he certain, concealment morally impos-
•ti "•• The Queen had many other opportuni-
va;'saof carrying On this- adulterous intercourse,.
ai•,`"ut exposing herself to the certainty of being
Ea;4'°varetl, had she really been the slave of a pas-
. ti -1' which would in the mind of every man have
tut railed her • to the rank of a common prosti-
Q'• But their Lordships were required to be-__
caE' that which must be in 'opposition to their
(lan,'4ll°n' sense.; so largely was their credulity
alad-•wlt upon, that it was really expected they
to-till give credence' to ,evidence which tended
to Pv"ve that the Queen had preferred exposure
atatc"cealment ; for at the times when it was
it •e'l this adulterous intercourse was going on,
' sow as its the power of any man onboard' the ves,
in thetc remove the canvas, and catch. the parties
. dears 'act If, after having duly considered evi-
-1 of this nature, a Judge could be- hardy
1 le ugh to give a verdict of guilty, such Judge
I ow, ,
' • a:' himself be,guilty of judicial murder. Ma-
jtachke: also fixed himself to the bath being
-rt into the Queen's room, and as it after-
wale
la turned out this was a- clear and uncle.-
beaa.. Proof of his gross, Wicked, anti deli-
-1,),," Perjury. Lieutenants Hownam and
ahlJ.,llll afterwards proved that it was not possible
C
to
coata be taken into the Queen's room.
11:1 4 a more satiafactory answer be given : to
iaa ong story that had been trumped up respect-
LeSathe bath ? " Gracious God (continued the
has rued Counsel), will it be believed that it
that :en imputed as a crime to her Majesty,
par. for long and faithful services she conferred
oth: us honours upon Bergami, and amongst
atai;s that of Knighthood ? It should be con-
tatittlY borne in mind- during this highly impor-.
afree‘investigation how 'much 'mischief may be
aasy'Y'd by persons of vicious disposition ; how
Into it 'night he for innocence to be' perverted
iat
rguilt. The mason's story, also forms too
tiotticestilag a feature to be passed over without
11,, e• This man has sworn that he, walked into
(4,, Palace, nay, into the very chamber of the,
.‘ea,.
"s through all the variety -of attendantsa

torming R6yal -establishment;; without lot*,
ruption, without interrogation. That iheOneen
wes lying down, but whether on a sofa„ b. 4, or
chair, he does not know, and that he theik shut
the door of the apartment and went away He
was only there fora single moment,blit that in" the
twinkling of an eye," to use his own expression,
he saw the Queen's breasts expOsed. It was neces-
sary to give an accurate definition of an Italian
twinkling of. an eye ; for, after having sworn
to this fact, he afterwards admitted, that as. he ,
was going away, he was accosted by some per-
son with " what do- you 46 here, you dog ?" To
this he replied, that he Wanted materials for his
men to work. Thus this moment, this twinkling
cyan eye, turned out to be long enough. to admit
of a question- being put to, him, and of his giving
a reply. At length Majocci gets to Lake Como,
and there he .venturesto describe a bathing scene,
in which the Queen is stated to have bathed in ;
water,. three quarters of a yard deep, and that
when she cane out of the water her clothes were all
wet at the top. It was really much to be lamented
that the time of their Lordships. should have been
occupied in listening to such ridiculous evidence,
and should it.make any impression upon their.
Lordships'. minds, which the Learned Counsel
firmly trusted it would not, the fact would be
transmitted to after apes' as -an extraordinary
example of human credulity. Much had been
said respecting the gross indecency of Mahomet's
dance; in all probability many of their Lordships
Were sufficiently acquainted with this 'dance, to
know-., that it was devoid of impropriety ; that
although it might not be characterised by grace,
it was at least free from indecency. Nay, a
stronger proof could not' be given of the purity
of this dance, than that Mahoinet was actually en-
gaged. 'by Mr. Elliston to repeat it to a British.
audience, at Drury-lane Theatre. At least the
Learned CounSel had been informed by respect-
able authority that this was a positive fact. It
is worth while to see how the malice of man can
distort the most innocent acts. In page 438,
speaking of the Barone, Sacchi says, persons of
low rank and character were introduced, and
proceeds to shew that parties withdrew for im-
proper purposes, and that the Queen was aware
of the cause of their leaving. But if we look at
the evidence of Lieutenant Hownam and Vassali,
we shall find that the Barona was a Small coun-
try house, which my Learned Friends would
'Magnify into a large estate, conferred upon her
favonrite, Bergatni ; that it was carnival time,
that the 'Queen pre these balls to the farmers'
daughlerS,• and that the servants did not come
in until the Queen had withdrawn. Were not the
prosecutors, even if the fact had,been as Sacchi
represented it, bound to produco the evidence of
all the servants AVho were at the Barona ? There
are one or two observations upon the occurrence
at Carlsrhue, which are worthy of notice, as the
evidence is that of Cresse, whi: is forced by her
Government to attend at your Lordships' Bar.
say that Cresse is perjured, or that the Minis-
ter of the Grand Duke of Baden has told a false-
hood ; Cresse says that she was asked to come
over here by M. de Birstett, who told her that
if she did not go voluntarily she would be
forced—and. forced she was by this, Minister ; if
he did not force her„Cresse has sworn
he did, what shall I say to such means of procur-
ing testimony ?—[Here Dr. Lushington read part
of the correspondence between M. de Birstett and
our Ministers, in which he says that no agents of
his Government had interfered to compel wit-
nesses to come here against the Queen.]-4 will
not shame your Lordships' judgment by suppos-
ing that any one who sits here will inflict a wound
upon his conscience, by taking the testimony of
Cresse as any evidence against her Majesty. For
the honour of England, I will believe that the
Hanoverian Minister, and his brother inspectors
of dirty sheets, were not set upon their abemin-
able labours- by 'any other prompting than the
wicked feelings of their own hearts. The Coun-
sel for her Majesty did not call the Countess of
Oldi, the sister of Dumont, Schiavini, and Wil-
' liam Austin, because the Queen's case was tri-
umphant without those witnesses. Had it been
necessary to call other 'witnesses, her Majesty's
Counsel, would not have exposed females to a: •
cross-examination like that which Lady Char-
lotte. Lindsay underwent. 'Where the cross-
examination related' to the Queen only, he
feared nothing; but when domestic ties .were
to be violated by it, and when Noble Lords
asked questions about ceilings which were never
alluded to, no, not even in the Attorney-Gene-
ral's opening speech, then indeed he might
pause before he brought forward a single wit-
ness, whose testimony was not. essential to the
interests of her Majesty. It was the first
duty of a Counsel not to expose his client
U., injury. He 'was justified in saying, there
' was not one point in the cause which required
further evidence, and speaking comparatively
of the witnesses, he was fairly entitled to say,
all the honesty and respectability was on her
Majesty's side. Their Lordships knew that
the charges against the Queen were inquired
into by a Commission at Milan. He did not
know how that Commission proceeded to the end
of their instructions, 'but it was evident that
they began wrong. They received the testi-
thnony 'of persons of suspicious character, without
inquiry whether that testimoy could be refuted
by evidence of the greatest respectability. The
case of the witnesses for the prosecution could.
not stand the test of investigation. Rastelli and
Sacchi were first eXamined, and then sent to
seek for a confirmation of the testimony they
theMselves had given. Gracious God ! (said the
Learned Doctor) what confidence can be placed
in such evidence ? Rastelli and Sacchi were em-
ployed by the Commission, and kept with Ma-
jocci for the purpose 9 of the prosecution. From
the- characters .of these men, the presumption.
was, that the Commissioners were most active in
procuring evidence in support of the foul charges
against her Majesty, and totally regardless of
all evidence which might acquit his Royal Mis-
tress. The Queen had not been tried for what she
had done, but for what witnesses, in a moment of
passion, or out of revenge, said she had donei—

The Witnesses employed had no, character to lose
they had nothing to fear, and had every jadute.
mentto do the thing they were paid They
had every hope.of reward instead-,of punishment
if they succeeded in their odious purpose. Col.
Brown, Vimicarti, Riganti, and Rastelli were the
persons accused .of improper conduct with re-
spect to procuring evidence ; and although they
might prove or disprove the charge, not one of
them was forthcoming, Rastelli, who was sup-
posed to be ready for examination, had been'
sent to Italy upon false pretences. Riganti
was not produced, although his evidence in any
Court of Justice would have been considered
necessary, to oppose the evidence of Pomarti.
So far as Vimicarti was concerned in the dia-
bolical part which had been taken, he. said
nothing. Perhaps the proper time would come for
inquiry ; but it was extraordinary, with all the
power derived from the influence of Government
and the First• Lord of the Treasury, that more
respectable witnesses had not.been produced in
support of the accusation. Why were not Dr.
Holland, Lady Charlotte Lindsay, Sicard, and
others who knew all the Queen said or did,
brought forward for the prosecution ? , It could
not be denied that great exertion had been made
by persons concerned in the prosecution ; but if
half the industry had ken bona fide, it *mild
have saved, their Lordships' much trouble', the
country incalculable confusion, and the public
an enormous expense. Dr. Lushington, near his
conclusion, observed—" At the end of the
Queen's case I haVe 'to thank your Lordships for
the indulgence with which you have heard me.
I thank your Lordships for your patient hearing:
and now with perfect confidence I leave the
cause of her Majesty to your Lordships. Assured
of your honour and propriety, I appeal not to
your mercy, but your.justice, for an acquittal."
Mr. BROUGHAM then.said" My Lords this
closes my case."

Earl GREY, immediately after, reminded the
House that he had, on a former day, expressed
his intention' to move that Sacchi and Dumont
be again called to the bar, in order to prove, by
examination, whether there was any contradic-
tion in the testimony of these witnesses. In con-
sequence of what had since occurred, he was not
inclined to persevere in that motion. The Noble
Earl had no longer any wish to see either Sacchi
or Dumont again.—The House then adjourned.

LONDON JOURNALS.

[DAILY EXTRACTS.]

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS.

[Morning Post.]

Tii. QUEEN.-Dr. LUSHINGTON yesterday
made his speech. The subject had been so com-
pletely exhausted by his brother Advocates who
had preceded him, that nothing very important
remained for him to do, and it is scarce necessary
to observe, that nothing effectual as to the main
points of charge has been or could possibly be
advanced by any of them. The Learned Doc-
tor went over the evidehce, as his Colleagues had
done, and of course founl no difficulty in coining
to the conclusion at which they had arrived. One
point he dwelt upon with great emphasis as be-
longing peculiarly to liiimelfas a civilian, and that
was the singularity of the case, observing he
had never before known a husband to seek relief
for the infidelity of a wife, who was fifty years of
age ! He-would thence have it supposed the crime
charged could not have been committed. He,
however,, had known cases of infidelity where the
Ladies were forty-five. Now, at the time the
adulterous intercourse with Bergami is stated to
have commenced, .her Majesty was only 46, and
therefore if she was anxious to have precedents for
what she did, she might be excused for think-
ing that she had found them in the case& of those
ladies with which Dr. Lushington was acquainted.
In fact, it is impossible to conceive any thing more
injudicious, or less likely to serve her cause, than
the ground of defence chosen by the' Advocates
of the unfortunate Queen. After the dariming
facts admitted even by her Own witnesses, pallia-
tion of criminality, and not utter defiance of
truth, would surely have been the course most
likely to be successfully pursued by her Ma-
jesty's Counsel ; but, instead of this, they
preferred appeitling to the basest passions of the
vulgar and ignorant classes of the community,
in the hopes of maintaining by means of rude
and popular Clamour the high but fallacious
ground of innricence, which in the desperation of
their case „they so imprudently assumed. Pro-
ceeding in this indiscreet course they affected in
the first instance to consider her Majesty's case
safe, -without having recourse to the .plea of
recrimination ;_ but completely failing in the
vain presumption, poor Dr. Lushington, though
indulging' in a similar affectation, has been re-
duced to the humiliating necessity of urging
that part of her defence with the utmost bitterness.
professing certainly•to.have made his remarks with
much pain, and not venturing to say that they
were foUnded on any proofs. lie would admit of
no distinction between the case of a King and
Queen of a moral people and that of an ordinary
couple in humble private life. Ile could not of
course take into his consideration this important
difference, that in the one case the dignity of the
Crown and the character of the State are in-
volved, while in the other it is merely the feeling
of an individual that is to be consulted.. The
King does not present himself in the present case
merely as a, man requiring personal Teller, bat us
the Sovereign of a great and moral JFaripire, whose
duty it is not only to maintain the dignity of his
Crown, but to preserve the national honour,-
;',nd be watchful of the moral character of hiS
people. The present proceSs•is, theiefoit, not
in behalf of his
.Majesty, but of the State ; and,
under this consideration, it excites Our astonish-
ment, even in these sad times of bae httcl itifa_
mous delusion, to- find overlooked: by
,men of
legal learning, the obvious distinction betWee'n
the wife of a, private individual anti the wife of
a Sovereign; who, if sheyemain such, must be