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

NEXT WEDNESDAY, N0V.15, STATE
LOTTERY BEGINS,
Containing Prizes of 20,0001. Consols, Two Prizes
of i 8,0001. Consols, added to Two of 2,0001. Money, making
together
Four . . Prizes of . . 22o,000!

_
Consols and Money.
First Ten Minutes will decide
TWO PRIZES OF TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS.
TICKETS and SHARES are selling by BISH, Stock.
Broker, Sole Contractor, 4, COB.NHILL, and 9, ,CHARING.
CROSS, London, who shared and sold, in the Lottery jns
-ended, 3,645, 10,0001.-2,365, 1,0001.

Warranted to Sail on or before the 15th November, having
the greater part‘of her Cargo engaged, •
FOR MADRAS AND cALcur rA,
THE Fine Fast-sailing River-built
SHIP THAMES, A. 1. JOHN LI'ISON, Com-
mander. Burthen 370 tons. Lying in the!City
- Canal. Has very superior Accommodations
- for Passengers, and carries a skilful Sur-
geon.
For Freight or Passage apply to BUCKLES, BAGSTER,
and BITCHANAN, 33, Mark lane.
15th October, 1820.

Warranted to Sail on or before Ist January, 18-21, •having
the greater part of her Cargo engaged,
FOR MADRAS AND BENGAL,.• . .
THE Fine New Coppered Teak
, SHIP MOFFATT, THOMAS W. ALDHAM,
Commander. Burthen 750 tons. Ling in the
tro. City Canal. Has very superior
tions for Passengers; for which, or for Freight,
. apply to the Commander. at the Jerusalem Cof-
fee-House, or to BUCKLES, BAGSTER, and BUCHANAN,
33, Mark-lane.
13th October,- 1820.

PARLIAMENTS

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY

Conclusion of Yesterday's Proceedings.
Lord SOMER.' said, he should be most happy if he could
agree with the Noble Lord who bad just sat down. Nothing
would give him more satisfaction than to be able to say that
in his judgment the Bill ought nut to pass. Sorry he was that
a conviction directl+ the contrary was firmly and decidedly
fixed in his mind. The subject, with whatever levity it might
have been treated on some occasions, (and in.some instances
there were among their Lordships those who had treated it
with levity,) appeared to him of a most grave and serious na-
ture. He thought it nearly impossible to doubt that the
guilt of her Majesty had been established, when.a consider-
able majority of their Lordships had voted for the second
reading of the Bill, and when many of those Peers who de-
cided against its being read a second time, had expressed
strong suspicions of her Majesty's conduct, while several .of
them had positively declared their conviction 'that she was
guilty. He felt, that in this last stage of the Bill, he should
fatigue their Lordships if he were to go at great length-into
the evidence given at their Bar ; but it was impossible for
him to do justice to the opinion he had formed, without tres-
passing to a certain degree on their Lordships' time, by re-
ferring to what had. been stated by some of the witnesses
brought forward to support the Bill, It appeared to him, that
several points were to be considered in. deciding on this case.
The first point was the positive proofs which they bad of the
Queen's guilt. By positive proofs he did not mean that any
persons bad sworn to having actually seen the adultery com-
mitted, but he considered that they had proof of the adultery
in the long train of circumstances which had been sworn to,
that led directly to the inference that the crime had been
committed. It had been argued that the character of the
persons who had gl ve rt evidence at the Bar was such as
to deny theta' all claim to credit, and that their testi-
mony was sheWn to be such that it-must be regarded as de-
structive to the whole charge. To him it appeared that the
direct reverse of all this had turned out to be the fact. This
he would shew their Lordships in one instance. He parti-
cularly alluded' to the evidence of Barbara Kress. Her evi-
dence was ,such, that a Noble Lord opposed to
Kress. H
had given it as his opinion, that she was a fair and ingenu-
ous witness; but he had argued that she might have been
mistaken; that she might have' mistaken the Countess of
Oldi for the Princess. He (Lord Somers) must contend, that
on every fair consideration of evidence, the testimony of Bar-
bara Kress could not be in any degree invalidated. It • had
been proved, that she had lived at a number of places, in very
low situations—in situations which exposed a young woman
like her, in a remarkable degree, to be led into the commis-
sion of acts which were degrading to the female character.
But after all the inquiries that bad been made with respect
to her charactero not a single act had been proved against
her. Now, what was the case at Carlsruhe ? The Princess
slept .in the room No. 10. Adjoining that apartment was
No. 11, which was used as a dining-room :- awl next to that
was No. 12, which was the room in which Bergami slept.
There was a door opening from each of the rooms 10 and 12,
into the dining-room, so that it was only necessary to cross
that apartment to• pass from the bedchamber of her Royal
Highness to that of Bergami, or from the sleeping room of
Bergami to that of her Royal Highness. It had been stated.
by the witness that a broader bed, a bed.different from that
which had been commonly used, bad been placed in Bergami's
chamber before the arrival of the Princess; but after the ar-
rival of the courier who announced her approach. Under
these circumstances, it was impossible to infer more or less
than that that bed had been placed in Bergami's apartment by
directions given by the courier, who preceded her R. H• Te
heir
Lordships would then find that one evening,
during th
abode of her Royal Highness at Carlsrbue, Barbara Kress
carried water, nut by the directions of any one, but in the re-
gular performance of her business as chambermai
12, the d at the in
where her Royal Highness had put up, into No.
of Bergami, and in that room she saw Bergami and the Prin-
cess ; Bergami was in bed—the Princess was satire: on it.
The witness naturally staid but a moment, being frightened
by what she saw, which was the arm of .
Bergami (that arm
she described to be white) round the neck of the Princess.
What could be stronger than this? If this were not very
like a positive proof of adultery having been committed
added,
, be
knew not what ought to be received as such. Kress

that as soon as she entered, the Princess let the arm of Ber-
gami'fall ; she seemed alarmed, and jninped up on perceiving
the witness. Their Lordships would remember the discus-
sion they had bad on the mentninig of the Word which bad
been rendered " jump ;" -and they world recollect that it had
been proved beyond all doubt, that that which the witness
intended to state was, that the Princess bad jumped up,
alarmed at her opening the door. The witness further stated
that she had made op the bed in the room No. 12, and being
asked if she had found any thing on it, she had mentioned a
cloak. The Attorney• General then inquired whether she
had found this cloak "on " the bed or "in" it. The an-
swer was, that she found this cloak in the bed. This fur-
nished another corroborative circumstance. The examina-
tion proceeded—
Q. Was that a cloak appearing to belong to a female?—
A. Probably, because behind it had a kind of hood.
Q. What did you do with that cloak ?—A, 1 took it out and
unfolded it.
Q. At what time of the day was it you found this cloak in
the bed ?--eA. It was is the morning when I made the bed.
Q. Describe a little more particularly the cloak, what it
was made of ?—A. It was of silk, the colour grey.
Q. Did you afterwards see any one wearing that cloak ?
A. I have seen a cloak nest day on the Princess, but I cannot
say that it was the same.
—Here, in his opinion, -was a very strong corroborative cir-
cumstance. The witness had then been asked,
Q. Was it a cloak of a similar description to that yon had
seen upon the bed, that von saw the Princess wearing ?
The answer was, " Yes; it was of the same colour."'
Q. Do you know whether it was of the same make? whether
it was of silk that you saw upon the Princess-?—A. Yes; it
was likewise silk.
Q. Had the cloak the Princess was wearing a hood like that
you saw in the bed ?—A. Yes; it had such a hood.
Now, if it was possible to trust to the evidence of any woman,
the evidence of Barbara Kress seemed as strung as any that
could be given. Bergami was seen in bed, with his arm round
the neck of the Princess, who was sitting on the bed, and the
next day a cloak worn by her Royal Highness was found in
the bed! What could be stronger than this? His understand-
ing might be weak, but certainly such' facts carried conviction
to his mind. Hethen noticed the evidence given by Kress, with
respect. to the stains which she had observed, and commented
on the natural wayin -which her testimony bad-been given. The
facts site had stated,-be thought, under all the circumstances
of the case, supplied positive proof that the adultery had been
committed. Barbara Kress, it appeared, had been reluctant
to come as a witness—she at last came to England, accom-
panied by her brother, and nothing whatever had been proved
against. er that could, at all tend to discredit her evidence.
Upon the whole, his Lerdship considered that the case spoken
to lay the witness Barbara Kress was established upon the most
clear and satisfactory evidence, which had not been in the
slightest degree shaken or impeached. His Lordship here
alluded to several of the leading features of the case, and
begged to say, that certainly 114 bad been absent from the
House When Lieutenant Flinn gave his evidence; as also
dnring that of Lieutenant Hownam, whom he considered as
haring a strong interest in the case ; but as to the subject of
his being absent daring any period, he begged leave to say
that his conduct had been wholly misrepresented by Tine
Morning Clawilele. That paper had asserted that he was pre-
sent during the whole of the ease for the Bill, and absent dur-
ing all the Queen's case. •. He would here state to • their
Lordships that such an assertion was a positive falsehood.
The only periods in The Progress of the case during which be
was absent were while the evidence of Lieutenant Hownam
liMi•Flinn, and during the somonng up, of the Queen's case
tiy_ftlr. Denman, and during the Solicitor-general's reply.
HIS Lordship thought it proper to have this matter set right
before their Lordships, and having made this observation he
should take no further notice of it: His Lordship now came
to that part of the case which shewed that Bergami, the
cornier, dined at the .satire table with the Princess-of Wales,
attired in that livery in which -he had waited behind her ,
chair, anti discharged all the offices of a menial servant.
If any thing could hate remained wanting to S.:111;g any
reallpable Mind of tlol4ncL-iture.of that Connection whith
was subsisting -bet weet a 21143 P;-;el%-iikr-bia.. Lord-
ship thought this proof di-coive of their guilt. A circum-
stance • Strinigly corroborative of the criminal' familiarity
with Bergami was derived front the evidence of Lieutenant
1-lownam, from which- it appeared that site was so hurried
away by the excess of her passion, that she could not wait un-
til be was promoted to a iligher rank, before she admitted
him :into her-familiar society; but she placed him at her table,
she took her meals with him repeatedly while lie was yet a
servant ; she sat at table with hint repeatedly when he was in
the livery of a courier. It was true an attempt had been
made to set up that -the courier's dress was a splendid uni-
form; but—a courier in uniform ! as_ well might.their Lord-
ships have been told that the royal livery was a uniform.
Lieutenant Hownam too had said, that he thought it na de-
gradation to her, Royal. Highness to sit at table with him in
that_ manner. But could that opinions have the smallest
weight with their Lordships? Was it not
.degrading'to the
Princess to dincewith her servant in livery? The Noble Lord
then proceeded to read and comment on the evidence respect-
ing the PrinCess's attending the masquerade at the theatre of
San Carlos, at" Naples. It was asked in reply to this, " Was
it expected that her Royal Highness should go to a masque-'
rade in 'her state carriage ?"—He would answer " No !" But
there was a mode of attending a masqderade, in which the
rank and station'of the party might be properly attended to.
Bat how had her Royal Highness gone to the theatre on that
occasion ? How was she accompanied ? She went in the most
concealed and secret manner possible, in a commonfiacre,
and accompanied only by.Bergami•and Dumont. Were those
fit associates for a Princess at a masquerade. The evidence
of Dumont, nu whose statement those facts rested, it had been
strongly contended was not to he believed. And Dr. Hol-
land had been called to -contradict her, respecting this visit
to the theatre of San Carlos-; but nothing which Dr. Holland
had stated could in the smallest degree invalidate it, or
alter the inference which was to be drawn from it. He
said be was at the. theatre on that evening ; that he knew
the Princess was there, but not till he heard it on the fol-
lowing morning, and he does not know with whom she went.
Another circutuStance strongly indicative of the criminal
intercourse, was the introduction of the Countess Oldi into
the family, and the concealment of her relationship with Her-
ganri. Much had been said respecting certain letters of Do
moot, which had been produced to show that she had formerly
entertained a different opinion of the Princess's conduct from
that which she gave in her evidence; but be thought that
no inference could be fairly drawn from those letters that she
was :at all conscious of the Princess's innocence of the con-
duct charged in the preamble of the Bill. The Noble Lord,
after-a little further comment on the credibility her
the evi-
dence of DUIDOnt, declared- his- conviction of her Majesty's
guilt, and his. determination to support the Bill.
- Earl FOR'I'ESCUE, then rose,. but his voice was so ex-
tremely low, that it was almost totally inaudible below the
Bar. He was understood to say, that this was-the first oc-
casion on which he had ever the misfortune to differ in .opi-
nion from the Noble Lord near hint, but he felt bound to do
so from the best consideration he could give the subject. lie
could not help saying, that he had all along understood that
some material alterations were to have been made in the Bill,
and he felt astonished that those alterations consisted merely
in the omission of the word " the," and the alteration of Bar-
tolomo into Bartolomeo. In his opinion, the proofs adduced
in this case-were neither clear nor convincing. He thought
great 'mischief had been done by bringing this question befan-
ore
Parliament. Every step they had taken bad gone to le
lore
not only the Constitution, but the rifonarchy, and there-
fore be conceived their wisest course would be, while the op-
portunity yet existed, to endeavour to repair, as much as pos-
sible, the injuries which they had inflicted.
The Duke of BEDFORD was unwilling to offer himself to
the notice of the House, and lie was still more unwilling, be-
cause he. felt himself called upon to give hiedecided dissent to
this Bill, which in his estimation, would tend not alone to
degrade the Crown, but to degrade that House, and to do an
act of injustice to the people. He had not given his vote in
support of the Divorce Clause, because he felt a conscien-
tious conviction, that so much of the Preamble of the Bill
as charged the Queen with the crime of adultery, had not
been preved. He could unit consent, tinnier such circum-
stances, to give hi: consent to any proposition, the effect of
which. mast have been dishonourable to her Majesty, He
confessed he felt .some astonishment that his Majesty's
hav Mie
-
nisters, by whom thisßill had been introduced, should
consented to its mutilation, in what he considered as its
most cssentiAl parts. For if they were satisfied that the adul-

tery had been proved, it appeared to him that as a necessary
consequence divorce ought to follow. With regard to the
comments which had been made by the Noble Earl at the
bead of his Majesty's Government, upon the testimony of Du-
mont, he taaught them by no means well founded. He .denied
that. Dumont had been Confirmed by I)r. Holland, or that any
thing bad occurred which entitled her to belief. After the
able and elaborate manner in which the subject of evidence had
been argued both at that Bar and by Noble Lords in that House,
he did not think it necessary to detain their Lordships by any
remarks of his own. He thought it not unworthy of observa-
tion, however, that nut an iota of evidence had been offered
to impute the slightest act of impropriety to her Majesty,
during the last three years. The King was the prosecute:
in this case, although they were informed it was tl:e State.
And it was not, perhaps, the least anomalous part of Vies:
proceedings, that two of the King's brothers were sitting
in judgment on a measure of so much delicacy and impotn-
once. He meant no disrespect to these illustrious person-
ages in saying this; he was satisfied they acted conscienti-
ously; he considered the charges against her disproved, 'and
from the bottom of his heart he said not guilty upon my
honour —(Hear, hear, hear'.)—tae proceeded to state, that
when this question was first introduced to the House, he felt.
very strong prejudices against the Queen, arising from the
reports anti stories which were in circulation. Upon listeni iK .
to the evidence, however, those prejudices had subsided, and -
if he were now acting in a judicial capacity, which he did not
think be was, he should have iso hesitation in saying most so-
lemnly, and with a safe conscience, that she was not guilty.—
(Hear, bear, hear !•-alts his legislative capacity, in which cha-
racter he had now to- give his vote, looking to the impolicy
and to the injustice of this Bill, he had as little hesitation in
saying " Not Content."—(Hear !)
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in rising to express his senti-
ments upon this important oacasion, observed that he had
given way to his Grace the Duke of Bedford, being anxious
that every Noble Lord should deliver his view of the great
question upon. which they were called on to decide. It ,did
appear to hint, he must confess, to be totally impossible that
any man should vote for the second reading of this Bill, who
did not feel himself entirely convinced (he did nut mean as re-
garded a moral conviction only) of the guilt of the Queen.
it was not, in that stage of the proceedings, his duty—nor
did he think he need now at all address himself to that
point—to enter into any consideration of the policy of what
might be to .be done, should their • Lordships think her
guilty. He took the liberty to point out to their Lord-
ships that it would be- quite competent for them, provided
they felt confident that the whole or part of the charges were
substantiated in evidence, to alter the preamble of this
Bill, so as to ascot or deny, first, every thing which they
believed to be trite, and which might be retained ; and then
every thing which was not made out upon legal evidence; and
this they might leave out. Returning for a moment to the
divorce clause, a majority of the House had voted in its sup-
port ; but be would suggest to Noble Lords that it would be
for -hens now to consider whether they would think it right to
act upon that principle of the Ecclesiastical Courts, s. where
parties proceed- for a restitution of conjugal rights, and
where adultery is both a bar against restitution, and a plea of
recrimination ; or whether their Lordships would rather act
upon the great general principles of the Ecclesiastical Law
of this land ?" His Lordship proceeded to show that It might
be a question whether parties should be separated by a di-
vorce " a mensa et -hors," or by-a divorce only " ;no salute
aviati," in which latter ease the individual, however, may
nut be able to prove the adultery. The plain_ toiestion here,
however, was, what was just ; his own opinion being that
they could not act justly or fairly in voting for the Bill, if they
did-not do so from an influence of her Majesty's guilt. Irr at-
tending to the Speech of a Noble Lord, who had alluded to
sonic -former observations of his, it did not appear to him (the
Lord Chancellor) that he had made any statement which be
could wish to retract. He looked upon himself, as he had
more than once observed, as a co-jurer with their Lordships;
he looked upon their Lordships as co-jurors with him : end
he then stated, what he now again asserted, that if, indite
course of this • proceeding, their Lordships, or any of thew,
found reason to alter their opinions, even up to the last mo-
ment, nail +tie question se;utstill.to.he put to euilte or
not guilty hey would not fail to secord that opinion. .tie
should nut say one word as to the expediency or policy of this
measure: " but," continued his Lordship, " drawing a clear
distinctiou between moral conviction and legal evidence..,,ur
Lordships must, however, decide on the legal evidence, which
in other words means presumption of guilt. If your Lim),
ships are not convinced of the guilt of the Queen on legal
evidence, notwithstanding all that you have beard, you rrist,t
vote against the third reading of the Bill. Your Lordships
heard the other day a very aisle argument on the.• war: in•
which judges estimated .circumstantial evidence. Ido not,
however, say that there was much analogy between the•cases
cited by the Noble Lord (Grenville) and the present, not even in
the case of murder: there the circumstances all .hear on one
point; there the first proof must be that the crime was commit-
ted, that a person had beento ordered ; and it is by cirtomistau-
tial evidence that the crime is brought home to the guiltrio-
divitinaL 1 recollect a -case, in which a man was found dead. ou
the highway, shot through the head; there was no doubt of the
murder having been committed; the wadding of the pistol was
found clotted its the hair of the deceased ; and; on the head
being washed, a piece of paper was found unconsuined.-,
This fragment was also -washed, being put in. a basin. of'
hot water; and, being unstilted, proved to be part .-of
ballad, the remainder of which was found in the pocket of
another person, who was- apprehended on suspicion of taring
he murderer. Here was strong proof. In cases of circomoan -
tial evidence there are antecedent facts from which inferences
may be drawn. But if your Lordships will only decide cases of
adultery on the positive fact baring beenlprovea, it k necessary
to avow such a determination, and to declare that all the 'di-
vorces hitherto obtained have been wrong. Mitch will always
depend on antecedent circumstances. • Suppose a lady and
gentleman going into a room and locking the door, which- is
afterwards forced, and they are discovered preparing to com-
mit adultery, this would be no evidence of the fact ; but it, a
'few•days afterwards, the same parties lock themselves rim a
room for some hours, or be found for five weeks sleeping is
the same apartment, would any one say that their preparing
for committing the act was not a strong antecedent proof that
it was afterwards committed ? Laying aside the evidence of
Majocci and De Mont, and looking at the uncontradieted evi-
dence its support of the case, and the evidence for the defence,
which afforded iu this as strong a legal presumption of guilt
as the evidence for the Bill itself—and looking also at the
evidence which might have been produced for the detence,
and the non-production of which ought to have been account-
ed for ;—looking at all these circumstances, I think it will be
difficult for any man to lay his hand on his heart, and say
" Not Guilty." I must again say that, if your Lordships sate
not convinced of the Queen's guilt on legal evidence, no moral
conviction, no question of policy or expediency, can justify
your fiuding her guilty. The Noble and Learned Lord then
alluded to the case at Ttieste, in which there was first 'Moral
convictioo, and afterwards legal evidence, that the Queen was
m
not there ore than a day and a half. " I feel gratified, and
so I am sure will your Lordships, that I am now going to otter
my last words on this great and melancholy question." The
public might deal with him as it pleased he should vote con-
scientiously, and only rega• ding the dictates of his own breast.
But, acting under that influence, he could net disengage him-
self from the moral obligation he felt under to vote for the 3d
reading of this Bill.
The Bishop of CHESTER said he rose to explain the
growth of the conduct which he meant to pursue arm the
present stage of the question
before the Douse.
given his vote fur the second reading of this Bill upon his toll
but painful conviction that her Majesty was guilty of the
carpipneseara:dleg,tsool pre
crime
proved- bv circumstantial evidence alone, and it also
m e e:' bole f o4fo ittirte hill.
appeared to him that in the pi esent case that evidence
bad been accumulated in an extraordinary and most convinc-
ing manner. If her Majesty still be innocent, he must say
that innocence never before ilk the annals of the world was
so placed,
or had to contend wills such a combination of eh--
coaustantial and corroborative facts adverse to its character.
lii giving his vote for the second reading of the Bill, he hyoid
Int :MS intended to be understood as concurring in the divoyea
clause.—(Hear )—He did not wish, in any thing which' be
was now about to say, to enter :spin
ujisnthteodtuhseageetnonfitriteleratliovsiti
ovLofartwel teei
rErtiifst,twa, fralysi eccraosieiSaslr,a:jtafetysi tt is
d, missive tt;ahh: especially
itibsouticgh hi
at the O
ai -s
this, against the Divine Law. Thinking it, therefore, against
the precept of the Divine Law, and contrary to the whole