Star.
London, England, 1820-10-30 00:00:00

.

• •
N-16":. • . .

Le the teat was not 414 MHileallioned by Mr. Brougham,.
119 titjciortice Mr.,Datman took of it, it was dwelt upon
ee, a Nahic as nokcleatiy proved t but Dr. Lushing.
ton -Idiotic fhclp'imd laboured with great vigour,
though, in his mind, with no great effect, in defending it. But
it was strange that the Learned Attorney-General of the
Queen—he who had displayed such talent in his openin
whose powerful mind had expanded itself over the whole of this
cute—grasping everything; however great, and comprehending
every matter the most minute, omitted the mention'of this part
altogether. This was left to. his Learned , Friend, he (Mr.
Brougham) keeping all the sap of the ease, -mid leaving him
only the rind. Was it that this part was too hard for his work-
manship, and that be therefore left it to his Learned Friend?—.
Thelact, however, was clear, from the evidence of Lieutenant
flownatn, that Bergami slept in the tent ; and, in addition to
this positive evidence, their Lordships had, which was stillbek
ter, the negative evidence of the Countess of Oldi,--(Hear //rates
several Peers).—Why, if the fact was not so, had she not been
called? Was this, too, an accidental omission? Were the Coen-
eel for the Queen not agreed upon this point also? He would
not pretend to say they were not, though be had his own sospi-
cicms on the matter. In such a case u the presto, he would
have put the Countess of Oldi into the box at all baxarda; end,
the moment he found that it was not intended to do so, he said
the ease bad received its death-blow. If Bergami slept in the
cabin, surely the Countess of Oldi must have known it, and she
must have been the best witness on the subject? Why, then,
had she not been called ? She had been sent for. Mr. Vizard ,
bad brought her to this country. She was now in this country,
ami, no doubt, had been questioned. She was, of course, will-
ing enough to assist the case, but she would not consent to state
on her oath that which was not true. But if there was any par-
ticular objection to calling her, there was a host of witnesses be-
sides. Where were Schiavini, Austin, Hieronimus, Marlette,
Camera, and several others? All of these could have been pro-
duced to speak on this point, but they had not dared to examine
one of them. Need he offer one word more to their Lordships
on this part of the case ? But it had been asked, if Bergami had
slept under the tent, what inference could be draws from it?--
The tent was liable to the access of several of the suite, and, on
one occasion, Lieutenant Flynn went and lifted it up at the side
to speak-to her Majesty. Now, against that point the evidence of
Garguilo was conclusive, for e swore that it was fastened down
all round, and that there were pins to fasten it. Mr. Hownam
said it might be opened on the side, and Flynn said he lifted
it up. Did he, however, ever attempt to lift it up, except
when he was ailed by her Royal Highness? Oh, but there
were hatches ! and persons might come udp from below. Yes,
but what said Lieutenant Hownam upon that subject? He
stated, that one night he went up through the hatches, but finding
the tent closed, he instantly withdrew ' • and yet it was maintained
that the parties in the tent were liable to interruption: but who
swore that the hatches were left open? That, at best, was a
point in doubt; and yet, if they were so, the parties sever sup-
posed that any one, unbidden, e:ould dare intrude upon their
privacy. Ile nosy begged to direct the attention of their Lord-
ships to another fact, of more importance than those upon which
he had already touched. Garguilo swore, that on one occasion
he saw her Royal Highness sitting in Bergami's lap, on a gun
on deck ; and Paturzo swore it also, and that he saw her Royal
Highness sitting with him (Bergami) on a bench, his arm sup-
porting her back. To this might be contrasted the negative evi-
dence
of Lieutenants Hownam and Flynn; but there was ano.
ther fact sworn to by Gargoilo and Paturzo, at which Count'
Schiavini was said to have been present, and yct he was not called
to contradict it. What was the natural inference to be drawn
front this circumstanced' What would be inferred front it, in
the investigation of truth in any Court of Justice, but that those
witnesses were withheld from a fear of what they might be able
to prove. Now, then, without adverting to the circumstances
of the extraordinary rise of Bergatni, to the introduction of all
his family, except his wife, into the suite of her Royal nigh-
ties', it resulted from the evidence, that a number Of these in-
decent familiarities had taken place on several occasions, and
that afterwards her Royal Highness slept under a tent for six
week;, side by side with this man. Was not the conclusion of
guilt most evident'? What was the doctrine laid down by the
C:onsistorial Advocate of the Queen as he was called? Ile had
said, that if opportunities were shewn, and circumstances proved
to lead to the conclusion that advantage had been taken of those
opportunities, it was sufficient ro make out adultery. What
better opportunity could have been afforded than in the tent?
and facts of the most indecent familiarity were deposed to by
the witnesses; thus applying the facts to the argument on the
other side—to the argument of the great Consistorial Autho-
rity, it was clear that the House could arrive but at one condo-
sior. One very singular position had been taken on the other
side—that the parties were never undressed ; nay, Mr. Brougham
in one of his examinations, had asked whether the'Princess took
off a stitch of her clothes (such was his word) during the whole
of the long voyage? Yet the Princess had been lying all the
time side by side with this "singular-looking, stunt-built" man;
and, because her dress was not taken off, it was to be concluded
that there had been no criminality. Was a proposition so mon-
strous ever urged before any tribunal, more especially before
puch a tribunal as this? Paturzo bad sworn that he saw her
-I,,oking out of the tent in a morning-gown, and it appeared that
the dress of the other party was a loose Tunisian robe, and Dr. 11
Holland had deposed that it was the ordinary mode of dressing.
If such obstructions as these were effectual, what was to be-
come of population?—(Laughter).—Formerly it had been said, ,
that a Looped and whale-boned petticoat was insufficient.
4' Oft have we known that seven-fold fence to fail,
Though stiff with hoops, and arm'd with ribs of whale."
this too frequently
" Gave way and bent beneath a fierce embrace."
And was it credible that the ttueen's morning gown had made
a stouter resistance? He (the Solicitor-General) hardly knew
how to deal with the kind of justifications set up on the other
aide : the tedious evidence might be resolved into two or three
points, and one of the reasons (for some reason or other must
be given) for the conduct of her Majesty during the voyage was
the strongest ever assigned. It sbewed to what extremities the
other side was driven when they resorted to excuses, ground
by a very slight examination to dust, and dissipated in the air.
Protection, they said, was necessary : the Queen must sleep in
the tent with a male protector. Had they any reason to suspect
the crew ? No. Would not a person lying in a hammock,
within four or five feet of the tent, have been a sufficient pro-
tection? Yes, was again the answer of the witness. Was not
Captain Flynn there? No; only occasionally; but be might',
have been there. Lieutenant Hownam might have been there:
Schiavini might have been there; but then he was only a lands-
man: What was Bergami but a Landsman ?• True, but then ]
he was " a singular-looking, stout-built" man, and might be of
m re service to her Majesty—(Laughter).—But for the lan-
guage and the imagery on which these matters bad been ob-
served on the other side to mislead the judgment, everybody
must have been struck with the extravagant absurdity of such
pretences. The organs and faculties of men were, however,
now getting into their proper state, and they began to see
clearly, and to judge fairly. One observation made by the At-
torney-General carried irresistible weight. What must have
been the mutual reflections of these parties in their situation?
Here was a serjeant of dragoons, a courier, an elevated menial,
lying, for months together, side by side, with the Princess of
Wales ! Was it possible that she should not have been struck
by.the gross indecency of such conduct? Yet she was now to
be held up as a woman of such extraordinary purity, of such
noble, exalted, and refined sentiments. If, for a moment, she
had been thoughtless and foolish enough to place herself in such
a situation, must not reflection hive &hewn her in the most
glaring colours, the impropriety of her conduct? A woman of
- the most ordinary delicacy—a woman of no delicacy at all—a
mere woman—must have been struck by it. What, then, was
the conclusion ? Only this—that she could submit from but
one motive, and that motive a determination to gratify her de-
sires—to feed and inflame her Insatiable passion. The moral
evidence was even more cogent than the direct testimony, and
no man who did not wilfully shut his eyes—he repeated it
soberly, deliberately, dispassionately—no man who did not wil-
fully shut his eyes, could fail to see the obvious guilt of the
accused. He defied any one with the soul of a man, and the
faculties of a man, to give any other solution to the case. Fae-
tirra might mislead—yarty might sway—we might wilfully shut
our eyes, because we did not wish to see a thing; but looking
at the facts as we ought to do, fairly and coolly, it was impos-
ail* not to decide that an adulterous intercourse bad taken place
between the Queen and Bergansi. Need he allude to what he
lead mentioned when he before addressed the House—the ab-
iseuce:of that Individual, who, if the queen were innocent, if
the facts admitted of explanation, might have been produced !
He had been a respectful, humble, obedient, dutiful servant,
:d no more--discharging all his proper dudes for his august
mistress, and no more—a man 'without. Newish, without hnpu-
eatiou—why had be not made his Rspotraince?. 'He had ap.
welched
this couutrp—be had =de* SP. Motes ill one of the