Star.
London, England, 1820-08-19 00:00:00

•
-•- .
-- •
••
'."--71-1./IS-• vs • • 4.. '•
• • •
‘.
• -*.•••••..
•
•
•
•
40•1•••••
4 ')
40,411-)
•
40P •
I •
• • NeS/1 • • • be
• • ---
• 11-01 .:(
1: 4••
4
•••7
, , I'r •
110 •
• es. • .
g i• • 11111 . r • - . -- - ,4" -
• •-•
11%
11-10: • 14..‘ • - • (1111$: r"... '
• • •
•
• • "I •
• 'Au' - ""4=illlo==222oll2llllatittillf
tier

NV 11 BEA 10,448.

SATURDAY, AUG,

19, • 18'20.

..
_ ~~ ;
,~

_
Phleg SEVISPI-POl,

THE OBSERVER OF SUNDAY MORNING, AND
THE OBSERVER OF MONDAY EVENING.
THE fullest particulars respecting her Majesty the
QUEEN w:11 appear in The Observer of Sunday Morning.
The Mewls, evening Edition of The Observer is rendered
nos: desirable for Country Readers, and particularly so for per-
sons residing abroad.

• •
no tneans recommended the introduction of any -Bill
, of Degradation and Divorce. Their suggestion sim-
ply was, that a solemn inquiry should . be entered
into, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth, or
• falsehoOd of the allegations against her Majesty.
At any rate, the introduction of this Bill was not the
act of your Lordships Committee. It was laid before
your Lordships by an individual Peer, certainly a
very distinguished Member of his Majesty's Govern-
ment, but as a Peer enjoying no tide to pre-eminence,
and therefore no further privileged in the preparation
of such a Bill than any other of your Lordships, who
might have thought it limper to recommend such a
measure, would have been. My Lords,. I will not
impute any motives for this proceeding—it would be
presumption on my part to do so. I will not conjec-
ture in what quarter this Bill really, originated. I
take it for granted, however, that the Noble Lord was
not the draughtsman by whom the Bill was prepared.
Whether your Lordships' Usher of the Black Rod
served an order on his Majesty's Attorsey.Gesseral so
prepare the Bill, or in what way k:nias piodimed,
know not ; but of this I'am sure, that I need make
no apology to your Lordships for treating it with as
much freedom as that with which I should treat the
commonest Bill of Indictment that • might be found
against the meanest person in the land. My Lords,
when I look into the Bill for the motives of its enact-
ment, I find no inconvenience, no-necessity, no reason
alleged for passing the Bill, except the sentiment ex-
isting in the mind of the Noble Lord by whoni it was
introduced, a sentiment founded on written and un-
vouched evidence, that it was necessary your Lord-
ships should g manifest your deep sense of the-scan-
dalons, disgraceful, and vicious conduct on the part
of her Majesty.' To render such an ebullition of
moral zeal incumbent on your Lordships, one would I
expect that some strong and distinct c use should be
recited in the preamble of the measure. What do I
there find ? The preamble of the Bill states, that
Whereas, in the year 1814, her Majesty, Caroline
'Amelia Elizabeth, then Princess of Wales, anti now
Queen Consort of these Realms, being at Milan, in
Italy, engaged in her service, in a menial station, one
Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise Baitolomo Bergami,
a foreigner of low station, who had before served in
a similar capacity ; and whereas, after the said Bar-
tolomo Pergami, otherwise Bartolorno Bergami, had
so entered the service of her Royal Highness, the said
Princess of Wales, a most unbecoming and depicading
intimacy commenced between her 'Royal Highness
and the said Bartolomo Pergami, otherwise hart°.
'onto Bergami : and whereas, her Royal Highness
not only advanced the said Bartolomo Petgatni,
otherwise-Bartolomo Bergami, to a higlPsituanon in
her Royal Highness's Household, and received into
her service many of his near relationn some cf them in
inferior, and others in high and confidemialsituatiens
about her 'Royal Highness's person, but bestowed
upon him other great and extraordinary marks of fa-
vour and distinction, obtained for him -Orders of
Knighthood and Titles of Honour, and conferred upon
him a pretended Order of Knighthood, which her
Royal Highness had taken upon herself to institute
nitkont any just or lawful authority.' Now, my
Lords, from the beginning to the end of that part of
the recital which I have read, I am utterly at a loss'
to discovernot merely anything 4 scandalous, dis-
graceful, and vicious,' on the part of her Majesty,
but anything which any human being has a right to
censure, or to allege as a crime either in an ordinary
Court of Justice, or in this Iligh Court of Parliament.
Why, then, have all these circumstances been intro.
duced ?* I know that the preamble goes on to make
further statements But if this Bill is to be regarded
as a Bill of Indictment, why were not the strong
facts on which the necessity for it was supposed to
he founded, selected, and placed upon the record?
Why were not all these petty and unimportant cir-
cumstances omitted, and the plain, honest, and intel-
ligible charge at once described ? Was there ever art
instance in an ordinary Bill of Indictment, in which
an attempt vas made to ensnare and entrap the ac-
cused by k.stving him is doubt of the actual and dis-
tinct crime of which he was supposed to be guilty?
The law of England—that perfection of human
wisdom,' takes care that no individual shall he
charged with an offence, the nature of which he
shall not have the opportunity of distinctly under-
standing, and thereby of preparing the means for his
defence. If I indict a man for murder, I only state
that he, with malice aforethought, struck the fatal
blow at such a time, and in such a place. Is ever
anything mere than this stated in an ordinary Bill
of ? Why then, my Lords, I ask, are
I year Lordships, in this solemn and important pro-
ceeding, to allow the nature of the charge to be ga-
thered frcm circumstances? In a case in which, with
!reference to her defence, it is peculiarly essential to
the ends of justice, that the Illustrious Person ac-
cused should have the clearest and most distinct no-
tice of the precise fact with which she is charged,
why is that fact to be merely inferred from a state-
Meat of circumstances? Would any man in an in-
dictment for murder say that • John Thomas, having
been fez ten years the enemy of the murdered man,
and having frequently been heard to express malice
against him, and having told his confidential friends
that he would be revenged of him, and having been
seen at various times watching for his return from
'work at dusk, and 'having Majesty, ac-
companied by Lady Ann Hamilton, at this moment,
about 'a quarter after eleven o'clock, entered the
I house. The Peers immediately stood up. Her Ma-
, jestybowed, and took her seat within the Bar, close
to her Counsel. After the pause thus occasioned,
Mr. Denman proceeded 3.—" Never is it the practice
an state in a Bill of Indictment such circumstances
as those which I have just described, and which, if'
I I proved, are to seive as the basis en which the ac-
!; cured person's guilt is to be established. On the con-
trary, the charge is specifically and distinctly made,
I and the evidence to prove that charge, whether
cir-
cumstential or otherwise, is re9erred until the time

. , - = .• ,
4u. Row many women are. then, most vire
45, most truly modest, inear4e of anything im-
se, vinous, or immoral, in deed or thought, who,
tom greater vivacity of spirits, from less uatnral re- ,
serve, front that want of caution which the very con-
sciousness of innocence betrays them into, conduct
themselves* a manner, which a woman of.a graver
'character, elf a more reserved disposition, but tot
with one panicle of superior virtue, thinks too in-
cautious, too Unreserved, too familiar, and which, ff
forced upon oath to give her opinion upon it, she
Eight feel hetself, as an honest woman, bound to say-,lin opinion, was flirting!' Mrs. Lisle, it should
also be observed, was, at the time of her examina-
tion, under the severe oppression of having, but a
few days before, heard of the death of her daughter: ;
I a daughter. ho had been happily married, and who
'bad lived happily with her husband' in mutual at-
tachment t her death. Tire- or/ circuasetantie cf
kw these sitaajloa.weseld tititurally give a graver and
',Pierer cast to her cipiniong: 'lf such, my Lords, are
the able -and incontrovertible remarks made upon
the evidence of that most respect:tele and honour-
able individual to whose testimony they apply—if it
Lust be adatitted that in such a case great allow-
' ance ought to be made, not only for peculiar no:ions -
with respect to propriety of manners; but fcr the ex-
isting state of spirits of the person by-whom such
notions asay be entertained, what weight shall we
ascribe •to• the opinion that her Majesty has in-
dulged in 4 indecent and offensive faisiliarity and
freedom'—arr opinion, proceeding fiom nobtdy .
knows whoa; and which must have been founded
on infortmition passing through a variety of chan-
nels? My Lords, the passage which I have just
read, seems to have a classical allusion to a sentence
in which Hume describes the character of the un-
happy Anne Boleyn. The sentence is as follows: ,
4 Anne, though she appears to have been entirely in-
nocent, aed even. virtuous in her conduct, had a cer-•
tain gaiety, if not levity of character, which threw
her off her guard, and made her less circumspect
than her situation required. Iler education in France
rendered her the mere piecine to thosefreedoms; and
it was with difficulty she conformed to that strict
ceremonial practised in the Court of England.' And
let it be recollected, my Lords, that on the subject
of familiarity,' there is something in Royalty which
dispenses to the possestoss the necessity of being so
alert with reference to it, as may be requisite on the
part of persons of less elevated condition. They cane
.not lose any rank by whatever condescension they
may chew. If they give way to generous -kindness
atel sensibility—if, in moments of confidence and ab- .
tenci from suspicion, they indulge in their native
joyousness of character, they thereby diminish loa-
thing of the true dignity which belongs to them. It
is for persons of inferior station to feel a jealousy on
this subject, to keep at a distance fiom what might
be termed undue condescension, and to avoid that
amiable familiarity which is inhe:cnt in all gccd
minds, when at liberty to act from native
Such, try Lords, is the character which was formerly
attribtited to an Illustrious Person uliont I must r.ct
here name. I may, however, be permiued to men-
tion an anecdote of that Illustrious Person, which, I
' believe, rests on the authority cf the late Lord Guiitl-
ford. It is said, that that I:luso:atm Persan, some
years ago, so far bigot himself es to indulge in
habits of familiar kindness even with persons of a
rank so inferior to him-elf as waiters at t. sertis. F-cm
one of those individuals a nete was addressed to that
Illustrious Person, as felloe s .tei :epilog, of she
Cocoa-tree, presents his cern-I-invents to his Royal
Highness, &c. &c: To this his Royal Ilighecss re-
turned. an ane.ser, coucEel in these terins.-• THs
may do very well between you and me, Sam, but it
will not do with your people of high dignity. Per
GGD% sake, do not speak so to Norfolk and Aber-
corn r-( Aloud laugh). My Lords, I beg also to re-
mind your Lordships, that, but a short time since,
it was by no means improbable that a proposition,
which, instead of enacting that her Majesty should
be dethroned, and her marriage declared null and
void, welsid have recognized her Majesty as Quern
Consort, would have continued her in the legal en-
joyment of all-her rights and privileges, would have
secveed tuber nn antiuity for life of fifty thousand ,
pounds, would have undertaken to convey her in a
Royal yacht to any part-of the Continent, and waifs,'
have entreated her to accept, in conjunction %shit !ter
Royal Husband; the grateful ecknneledgmems of
Parliament, for the facilities afforded to such an ar-
rangement. If In any argument the conclusion shasi
appear to be false, acrd it that conclusion has been
fairly drawn from the premises, then. the ptetbise.s
themselves must have been false. If, therefore, ycs
Lordships were within a hair's breadth of having the-
proposition which I have just described submitted
for your sanction, it follewe that the charges against .
her 'Majesty-are false, and that the premises im which
those charges are founded cannot be true. Or, my
Lords, take it the other way. How conies it..that
we are here? The whole of this unfortunate affair
originated in his Majesty's Message to Parliament.
What was the gist of that. Message? That the
Queen's arrival-in this country tendered some Parliae
mentary proceeding necessary. The honour and dig.
nity of the Crown, the welfare of-the State, were in
no degree implicated, it seems, until her Majesty's
arrival in this country. Why, then, my Lords, the
preamble of the Bill ought to have run thus
ffe ee-
Whereas in spite of the ur of i'so,eeo a-year made
to her Majesty to lety away, and w her e.e, although
her Majesty knees of the charges that were-to be ea-
hibited against her, and whereos, although a long
negotiation was carried on, of a nature the n.ost fa-
voarable and flattering to her Majesty, she refused
to become a party to her ben •clegraeation by si-
lently acquleicing in her exclusion from the Litar,
&c. therefore be it enacted, that her Majesty shall b
degraded and divorced, and that her Royal Consort
shall- be at liberty to marry again. If your .Lords
the
ships wish the preamble of this Bill -to speak

of trial. What my Royal client has,, therefore,
justly to complain of in the principlecof this Bill, is,-
that it enumerates a number of doubtful circuits:.
stances eaumatino from an investigation of an (spit%
character, capable perhaps of answei, but assuredfy
calculated to excite undue prejudice. The sill al-'
legs that her Majesty has been unmindful of her
exalted rank and station, and of her duty to the King.
I entreat your Lordships to read the wbele of the'
first page, and the first ten lines of the second page,
*of the Bill. Is there a single fact there stated, which
chews her Majesty to have been unmindful of her
exalted rank and station, and of her duty to the
King?' Not one: There is not one fact which bears
that character; although there is an accumulation of
facts, from which the inference may be most unfairly
and "%charitably drawn. Afterwards, indeed, the
Bill ptieceeds to say, and whereas her said Royal
Highness, whilst the said BartolomcoPtigami, other-
wise liaitalomo Bergami, was in, her said service,
fetal* .inntindfol of her exalted rank --anif station,
itnd of het duty to your Majesty, and wholly regard.-
less of her own honour and character, conducted
herself towards the said Bartolomo Pergami, other-
wise Bartolomo Ilergami, and in other respects, both
in public and private, in the various' laces and coun-
tries which her Royal Highaess visited, with inde-
cent and offensive familiarity and freedom,' &c.--
Now, my Lords, I wish to .ask how such a charge
can be made good ? What is the precise meaning
Of . indecent and offensive familiacily and freedom?'
And what is meant by the phrase and in other re-
meets i'' We have not one fact stated to us toprove
that her Majesty has been at all unmindful of her
exalted rank and station, and of her duty to his Ma-
jesty; and we arc called upon toprovide arguments
Fund witnesses against a Vague charge of indecent
,
and offensive familiarity and freedom, and a myste-
rious intimation contained in the phrase ' and in
other respects.' Really, it would seem as if the in-
dividual by whom this, accumulation of circum-
stances, from which :in unjust arid uncharitable in-
ference may be drawn, has been brought together,
had previously worked himself into a determination
to impute crimes of which no positive evidence ex-
isted, in the expectation that by chance some su-
borned and perjured witr.ess, tempted by the bribes,
which, we know, have been liberally bestowed in the
countries which her 11Neity has recently visited,
might, in the course of examination, turn up, whose
testimony might establish the slander, purposely left
in a doubtful and ambiguous form, in the hope that
it might receive: some such base and accidental con-
firmation. As the climax of this loose and injurious
staterrent, it is declared that her Royal Highness
had carried on a 'lice. tious, disgraceful, and adul-
ter ors intercourse with. the said Bartulomo Pergami,
otherwise Marcelo= Bergami: Futely the epithet
of a:isthmus' was sufficient. I, the strength of the
expression increased by the addition of the words
4 licentieus and disgraceful?'—But it is further said,
that this 4 licentious, di-graceful, and adulterous in-
tercourse continued fora long period of time during
her Royal Highness's residence abroad.' No such
crime, therefore, is imputed to her Majesty since her
.accession to the troo to On those grounds, how-
ever, your Lordsi7ips are made to say in this Bill,
that • to evince your just regard for the dignity of
the Crown and the horiour of the Nation,' you in-.
treat his Majesty that it may be enacted that her
said Majesty, Caroline Amelia Elizabeth shall be de-
prived of the tide of Queen, and of all the prerooa-
tives, rights, privileges, and exemptions, appertain-
ing to her as Queen Consort of this realm ; and that,
her said Majesty shall for ever be slisabled of using.
exercising, and eojoying the same, or any of them.
And then, my Lords, lams that most v:markable
clause, that postscript to the letter, containing all
the interest of the epistle; that most touching and
personally important circumstance which is never-.
tireless merely mentioned en passant, by which a sem.
.tence of divorce is pronounced between the Illustri..
ous Personages immediately concerned in this trans-
action, and liberty thereby given to her Majesty's
.Royal Consort to contract another marriage. My
Lords, the circumstances described in the preamble
of the Bill, and to which I have already alluded; re-
solve themselves principally into a charge of unbe.
coming mid degrading intimacy,' and of indecent
and offensive familiarity and freedom.' In speaking
on this part of the subject, I wish to refer to one of
the finest pieces of English composition that, in my
opinion, ever flowed from the pen of any human
being—l mean the letter which was written by
the Princess of Wales to his late Majesty, in 1806,
on the subject of the inquiries into her Royal High-
ness's ci nduct, which had at that time been prose-
cuted. My Lords, the Bill talks of I indecent and
offensive familiarity and freedom.' It is obvious that
the opinion of the existence of this indecent and of-
fensive familiarity and reedom'was originally founded
on written and unvouched documents referred to va-
rious persons, ultimately to the Secretary of State'
and only in the fourth or fifth degree serving as the
basis of that opinion. Now, I defy any man to point
put on what subject so great a variety of opinion must
necessarily exist, as on the point of to what particu-
lar conduct the charge of indecent and offensive ,
fa-
miliarity and freedom' is justly imputable. On that
subject, in the course of the inquiry in 1806, Mrs.
Lisle, a Lady of the highest honour and respectabi-
lity, gave an opinion of the conduct of her Majesty,'
then Princess of Wales. Mrs. Lisle stated, that in
her opinion, her Royal Highness's conduct was 'only
That term ' flirting,' 1 ought to observe, is
the strongest epithet that was applied to her Royal
Highness s conduct throughout tie proceedt:ng to
which I allude. I will now take leave to road to
your Lordships two passages from the admirable:let-
ter from her Majesty, then Princess averted.
Wales, to the
late King, to which I have already adverted. What
Mrs. Lisle exactly means by onlyjfirting conduct, what
degree of impropriety of conduct she would describe
by it, it is extremely difkalt, with ICI precision, to

TRIAL OF THE QUEEN.

TIOT'SE OF LORDS, AUGUST 18.

About twelve o'clock Mr. betosaN came forward,
in behalf of her MAJLSTY, and spoke as follows:
H My Lords—Before I commence my observa-
t'ons to your Lordships, I must humbly beg leave to
thank you for the favour and indulgence which I
yesterday- experienced from your hands. it becomes
ley duty to state to your Lordships the objections
inch appear to me conclusive against the principle
ef the Bill. I apprehend that it is unnecessary to
car any argument to your Lordships, as to the
question whether the principle of the Bill is or is not
open for discussion. I apprehend that the question
stands in the same degree as if the Bill were now for
th.. first time introduced. If your Lordships should
csnsider that I am precluded from entering into the
measure as filly as if it were an -erigioal.measure, it
would be a waste of time for me to proceed at
I shall, therefore, go on as if no proceeding what-
ever had been taken heretofore—as if this were 'the
first moment that tile Bill was presented for the con-
sideration of the House of Peers—as if in law and in
fact your Lordships had notheard a single syllable
of the intentions of those who: proposed it. If it he
open, then, to me to enter into the principle of the
Bill, it follows that the House may now consistently
tale a different view of the question from what had
hem taken before, without any inconvenience, and
without any inconsistency. In doing so there will
be no retractation on the part of your Lordships, you
not be called on to retrace any step, because you
have not taken any.—There will remain nothing to be
nadone, because we are now on the threshold- of the
.orinciple of the measure, and there I shall make my
hrst stand. In looking at a Bill of such tremendous
Imiuttalice, though it is impossible for any legal
e r constitutional mind not to see numerous and
sarong objections to the principle of it, in whatever
point of view it may be examined, .yct I am free to
confess, tl.at I have to contend with many technical
discUlties, because I cannot see plainly the principle
which lam called on to assail. lam at a loss to
abstract the point at issue from a variety of particn-
I trs—l can see no point--I cannot see what is the
doctrine which is. taken for granted, or which is
sought tube established. I cannot see the precedent
which is relied on, or understand that which is now
about to be made, In this proceeding I can see no
light from the past, and no example for the future.
I have read over and over the preamble of the
and I cannot draw from it any precise or distinct I
eh srge—l cannot collect the character of the measure, I
or the intentions of those who framed it. Perhaps I '
should state here, that I address your Lordships un-
der an election, which I have been corn; elled to male.
Ido not state this in the way of. complaint. Ido
nut complain of that which appeared just to your
Lordships; but it is necessary and ptoper at the out-'
set, to state to your Lordships, that I have been com-
pelled to make this election, in order that we may
not be bound by it, should circumstances reuder it
r.ecessary for your Lordships to introduce any change
it; this measure; and in that event I may state, that
ray Learned Friends who appear licit to supvort the
will make no objection. I should also state
rnother point. In other cases common lawyers and
(.vilians have been heard; but in this case her Ma-
j::sty, it seems, is only to be alio‘Ned the aisistance
ot one common lawyer and one civilian. or two corn-
rion lawyers. Such, it -seems, is to be the rule on a
question of this unspeakable importance—a question
v.: ich involves al: the Teat principles of the corn-
n;on law, whirl) of the'' greatest importance to the
svt4l::being of society—to the interests alike of the
tioriteNici the country. Such a question, my Lords,
refires the aid of talents and information much
y,reateithailihine.l shall, however, proceed to state
arguments, for some of which I am indebted to my
Learned Friend, who would, indeed, do much more
justice to them than I can. In coming before your
Lordships to perform Ft important duty which my
office imposes upon me, I may safely declare., that •I
ft ‘el more true pride, more real heartfelt satisfartinn,
in this hour of trial and of difficulty, in performing
yrs- duty to her Majesty, that I would fed by par-
Filing a different line—even though all the favours ,
of power awaited me—even though all the wealth
and honours that could possibly be conferred upon
a subject were to be my immediate reward.—
I shall, I trust, perform my duty to her l'l::iest.y and
u he Engliih Bar ; if I fail, that failure will pro-
ceed from the want of talent alone, and nut frera the
want of zeal. In the first place, I may be permitted
to inquire into the history of the ;Bill now before
your Lordships. The Secret Committee which your
Lordships appointed for that purpose, sat upin do-
cuments of an unvouched character, the very hand-.
writing of which was not proved, containing alleza-
tans, said to proceed • from a great number of per-
:.3r.s in various situations of life, and residing in dif-
r..rent parts of Europe, charging her Ma; zesty with an
aJultesous connection with a foreigner, originally in
her service in a menial capacity, and attributing to
her Majesty a continued series of conduct highly un-
becoming her Majesty's rank and station, and of the
tiost licentious character.' Those charges appeared
to your Lordships' Committee 'to be calculUted so
s'eseply to affect not only the lionour of the Queen,
bat also the dignity of the Crown, and the moral
Eclia4 and honour of the coftntr, ; that, in their opi-
:!on, it was indispensable that they should 'become
subject of a solemn inquiry, which it appeared
the Committee might be best effected in the coarse
of a I.2gislative proceeding, the necessity of which
aotld not but mot deeply deplore.' It thus
apptars fnat your Lordships' Secret Committee by

-- I-

•

_. a....

NW

LI