The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-10-26 00:00:00

law of this case, at least those of your Lordships
to whom such information may not be familiar, in
order to prevent you from being misled by my Learned
Friends on the opposite side. My Lords, the Soli-1
citor-General, in his able speech, referred your Lord-
ships to a decision that was pronounced by Sir Wil-
liam Scott, and no man bows with more reverence to
the matchless talent of that great Judge, than I do.
Ile then referred their Lordships to the decision. It
was in the case of Louden v. Louden. But my Lords,
although the Solicitor-General dwelt with great empha-
sis, on that decision, he concealed from your Lordship's
view the grounds on which that decision was founded.
On this subject, my Lords, I shall quote, for your better
information, the words of that great man, who, no
matter what the station of the parties may be, never
forgets the ends of justice. He said, " that acts of
the most indecent familiarity bad been proved by wit-
nesses above suspicion ; the letters of the lady were
intercepted, and they were letters of such a descrip-
tion, that many a woman who inhabits a brothel would
be ashamed to write." And surely, my Lords, it must
be considered a little extraordinary that my Learned
Friends could bring themselves to draw a comparison
between the two cases. Do not think that I call fur
your verdict on mere legal grounds, because there is
not sufficient proof to amount to a moral conviction,
but because I sin firmly of opinion that no proof has
been adduced on which any man of honesty or &milkier+
could pronounce a verdict. It is not me intention to
trouble your Lordships with any disproof of the minor
parts of this case. But I will show you that Rastelli,
Deniont, Majucchi, and the others are perjered ; and if
I do not, before I close this address, I beg your Lord-
ships will stop me, and I am prepared to throw up my
brief. But while lam able to do this, which I have no
doubt of ; and also that the principal, nay the only, the
sole supporters of the Bill are perjured, need I entertain
the slightest fear of an unfavonrable verdict ? In advert-
ing to time evidence of Demont. he could say nothing
less, than that she had been nurtured to betray her
gener.,us mistress. The Learned Gentleman referred to
various parts of her evidence, and pointed out the pal-
pable can;ion with which she spoke, whenever
giving evidence of a circumstance likely to fall under
the observation of others. Ile should now go over
the evidence of twelve persons had been called too
behalf of her Majesty, who hail been constantly with
her, fruit her first entry into Naples, until her de-
parture from it: and, as to credit and character, lie
would nut insult those respectable persons, by making
a comparison of them with the cargo of Italians.
The Learned) Doctor then went over the evi-
dence of Lord Glenbervie, and of Lady Charlotte
Lindsay ; the latter a witness, whose testimony
was given in the mist candid and honourable manner.
That 1.a.1y said, that Bergaini conducted himself
towards the Princess, as a person in his sitnation oa-
tunny ought to conduct and it was nut a
lit
tle remarkable, that Lady Charlotte Lindsay, was with
her Royal Highness, in March and April, l 1,, the
time when the adulterous intercourse was charged to
have taken place at Naples. Iler Ladyship observed.
that there appeared no more familiarity on the part of
the Princess towards Bergaml, than three was too anis..
Siccard. In discussing the evidenceof Lady Charlotte
Lindsay, he could not forbear reminding their Lordships,
of that which was probably known to several of them—
that that Lady stood for honour and character very con-
siderably above the usual standard of her sex. He should j
now address himself to the equally respectable testimony
of the Honourable Mr. Craven, who declared that he
never saw any impropriety in the conduct of her Royal
Highness either at Naples or any where else, when he
had time honour of being with her; and that lilt the
part of Bergami there was nothing presumptuous or
assuming in his deportment from the time he waited
behind her chair, as a Courier, to the moment 311.1 in-
cluding the time of his being admitted to dine with his
Royal Mistress, at her table. Sir W. Geld also spoke to
the same effect. Berganii, he said, behaved as lie ought,
and he (Sir W.) never observed any impropriety in the
conduct of her Royal Highness. A question was then put
to Sir William Gel!, on the part of the prosecution
—a question, the like of whir% was never put
before on a criminal prosecution; fur its object was to
aseertain the opineus of the witness as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused. " said the learned
Doctor " I did not object to the question, for give me but
an honest witness, and if I believe my client innocent,
I will let you ask bins what you please. Give me but a
man who regards the solemnity of an oath, who has a
character to maintain, anal who desires to hold up his
head in manly honesty, and fears to hang it in coasts:oos
guilt ; give me such a man for my witness with an inno-
cent client, and away with objections and technicali-
ties! Away with the distinction of cross-examina-
tion, re-examination, and objections to leading questions!
Try such a witness by the severest test of cross-exami-
nation, and I will not only permit, but thank you in the
name of my client." The question to this witness was,
" Did you observe any thing in conversation, look, or
gesture, to induce you to entertain an idea that an adul-
terous intercourse existed ?" See my Lords to what an
ordeal my illustrious client is reduced! If in the
course of her Royal Highness's residence at Naples,
there had been one single act, one unguarded expression
in the innocence of overflowing affability, what must
hare been the answer? How is her Majesty tried
Not by facts ; but by A uctruding opinions, anti yet,
even by this trial, she came through it with honour
for Sir W. Geld said, in answer, that he had never the
least idea of any impropriety in her conduct. But the
Attorney-General would say, " These are people of
character, and the Queen was on ber guard before
them." Well then, he (Dr. L.) would refer to the evi-
dence of a plain honest domestic of her Royal High-
mess, M. Siccard, whose evidence was completely con-
firmative of the testimony of the other witnesses;
who swore he never saw or suspected any impropriety.
and that her Royal Highness was condescending
and affable to all her servants, almost to a fault,
Dr. Holland had said that the manners of Bergams to-
wards her Royal Highness was unpresuming and re.
spectful ; and denied all impropriety of conduct betwemi
them. Mr. Mills stated, that lie saw them together firm
quently, and never observed the smallest impropriety of ,
any thing that was in the slightest degree
cdoenrodguatclOry or
to the character of the British Bonfire. 1