!Slisr'iii^a.^it:li-' :\nS- YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE WHOI.E PROCEEDINGS ON THE TRIAL or HER MAJESTY, earnltne Amelia mi^nttfb, QUEEJ^ of ENGLAND, FOE " Adulterous Intercourse" WITH BARTOLOMEO BERGAMI; WITH NOTES AND COMMENTS. IN THREE VOIiUMES. VOL. I. CONTAIMIKG LONDON: Printed and Published by JOHN FAIRBURN, Broadway, Ludgat^ Hill. 1820. ZfnJpn Sr,Qiy.oid .^ Puf.^ Oct^ 4-i^ /SiO f-y T. fttmau v.; 7, Oxff,-^ Her Majesty's Defence having extended to an unexpectfd length, il has been thought most convenient to divide it into two volumes. The whole Proceedings against the Queen may be nom had complete in three volumes ; which, together with the " Delicate Investigation," in 1806, in one volume, 6vo, form an entire and uniform history qf her Majesty's unparalleled prosecutions. ADVERTISEMENT. IN the Case of the Queen there needs no apology to the Public for publishing a Report of the Trial, accompanied with Notes and Comments, before the proceedings are con cluded. In ordinary cases this might be liable to censure ; but not so in the case of her Majesty. The refusal of a list qf witnesses, whereby their characters, connexions, and mo tives might be ascertained,— the refusal of the names of the places where the alleged offences have been committed, — and the commencement of the proceedings before a tribunal, ma ny of the members qf which are in the pay, all of xvhom almost are either dependant upon, or look for honour and reward from her prosecutor, — clearly shows that the object is not justice — not an impartial investigation for the vindi cation of the honour of the country, its morals, or its laws, ¦ — but the condemnation of the Queen, the determined sa crifice of an illustrious woman, to the unquenchable and malignant hatred of her enemies ; and whose greatest crime and misfortune^ for any thing the public yet knozo to the contrary, are the contrast her virtues offer to the notorious vices of her accuser, who hates because he has injtired. ADVERTISEMENT. Such being the nature of the Trial of the Queen, it is dearly unnecessary to apologise for commenting on the pro ceedings while they are, still pending. Her Majesty's ene mies have shown att utter contempt both qflaxo and precedent ^ except when the observance of them were favourable to their purpose. Their object is obviously to prepossess the public mnd by an ex parte statement, and the object of those who believe in the innocence of her Majesty, who believes that she is infinitely more *' sinned against than sinning," is to frustrate their insidious design. The enemies of her Ma jesty may swear much s they may bribe ?nuch s they may enlist into their pa,y all the scum qf Italy, cast off servants, felons, and domestic traitors, and all that is vile, treacherous, and maligna?zt ; they may do all this, (for they have the . Treasury at their commafid,) hut xve defy them to hatch up a more disgusting fabric of guilt, perjury, and criminality,-. than was erected in 1S06. The fate qf that memorable con- spii'dcy is well known ; it covered jts authors zvith everlasting infamy, and we confidently anticipate, on the present occasion, a similar triumph to her Majesty, . and overthrow of her implacable and vindictive prosecutors. August 21, 1820. %* The Trial will be published in Sixpenny Parts, and continued with as little delay as is possible, consistently with the obtaining correct and authentic- reports of the proceedings. ' An alphabetical LIST of the HOUSE of PEERS, showing their Dependence on the Crown ; being^tlu: total Annual lvalue of the Pensions, Grants, Church Prc^fcnncnt, and otiur Things held by Ikcmselves and Families. This is the list of the S.uccn's Jury. But what a Jury ! Four-fifths of the num ber are ejther in the pay of, or do|iendunt upon, the prosecutor. With hardly any exception, they are all either in possession or cxpeclation of some benefit from the plaintiff. By 5Kft,serojenci/ they may expect some advantage from the elrvalion Xo a higher title, the promotion of themselves or relatives in the army, the navy, or. the church, or the grant of an additional pension or more prolitable place. In short, none of them can be deemed or considered independent and impartial jurors. They have all some motive, direct or indirect, to blind their judgement ' and bias their decision. Can, then, the proceeding against her Majesty, before . such a tribunal, be termed a trial, or does it bear the least analogy to English justice ? It is said the Queen is entitled to no more indulgence than the meanest subject. Very wellf be it so. But what analogy is there in the treatment of her Majesty and that of any otlier individual f What analogy is there in the arraign ment of the Queen before the House of Lords and a proceeding before a com mon jury. In the latter case, the least suspicion of favour or malice, Of interest or dependence upon either of the parties, is a sufficient ground of challenge. Nav, a sherift" cannot lawfully summon a jury, to try any cause, unless he be an indift'erent person, unconnected with either plaintilif or defendant ; neither can a judge preside in any county where he was born.: so careful is the principle of our laws to preclude the interposition of interested prejudiced persons. But how widely different is the lot of her Majesty. There the Lord Chancellor, (who, in fact, is the presiding judge ip the court, and all her jurors, have been chosen by, or are in some way dependant upon, her prosecutor. To expect a fair trial: would be absurd: it must be a mere mockery of justice. But, alter all, as the Poet Laureat says : , ' ' There is nothing like A fair, free, open trial, where the Kino Can choose His Judges and appoint His jury. And so it is. Here follows the list of the King's Jury, and the dmou^t wf corrupt influence attached to each individual peer. „ Annual Income of each Family i^nnual Income of e.ich Familjr from Places, Pensions, &j Abercorn, Marq. ( Hamilton. )£\,^0'7 Aberdeen, Earl, (Gordon.) .. 5,609 Abergavenny, Earl, (Neville.) 3,072 Abingdon, Earl, (Bertie.) .. 2,000 Aboyne, Earl, (Gordon.) 6,900 Albemarle, Earl, (Keppel.) . . 1,000 Alva N LEY, Baron, (Pepper Jrden,) 400 Amherst, Baron, (Amherst.).. 6,500 Anglesea, Marquis, (Pdget.).. 11,000 Anson, Viscount, {Anson.) 9,800 Arden, Baron, (^Perceval.) .... 43,y74 Argyle, Duke, {Campbell.) ..17,300 Arundel, Baron, (Arundel.).. 700 Asaph, Bishop, {Luxm^e,) .... 7,000 Ashburnham, Earl, {Ashburn- ham.) 1,300 AsHBURTON, Baron, (Dunning.) Athol, Duke, (Murray.) 17,059 Auckland, Baron, (Eden.) . ... . 32,335 AuDLEY, Baron, (Audley.) 1,500 Aylesbury, Earl, (Bruce- Bru- denell,) 6,300 . Aylesford, Earl, (Hcneage Finch.)... -.. 6,450 Bagot. Baron, (.Ba^ot.) 11,000 fiom Places, Pensions, ifec, Balcarras, Earl, (Lend.sey. ) £i6,0!iO Bandon, Earl, (Bernard.) 22,500 Bangor, Bishop, (Majendie.) .. 5,000 Bath, Marquis, (Thynne.) -6,195 Bath and V/ells, Bishop, XBea- don.) .' 7,330 Bathurst, Earl, ( Bathurst . ) . . 15,423 Bayning, Baron, (Totvnshend.) 1,000 Beauchamp, Earl, (Lygon.) .. 2,800 Beauport, Duke, (Somerset.) i^,QiOO Bedford, Duke, (Russell.) .. 200 Belhaven,' Baron, (Hamilton.) Belmore, Earl, (Carry.) .... 1,660 Bere s FORD, Baron, ( Beresford. )29,600 Berkeley, Earl, (Berkeley.).. 4,670 Berwick, Baron, (Hill.) 1, 130 Besborough, Earl, (Ponsonby.) 1,300 Beverley, Earl, (Percy.) 15,184 Blessington, Ear], (Gardener.) BOLINGBROKE, VisCOUnt, (Si. John..) ": 500 Bolton, Baron, (Ord Paivlett.) 4,000 Boston, Baron, (Erby.) 3,960 Bradford, Earl, (Bridgeman.) 'i,800 Braybrqok, Baron, (Neville.) Q.,960 BREADALBANEjEarl, CCa»ip6eW.; 1,500 4 LIST OF PEERS. Bridgewater, Earl, (Egertan.) 13,'?00 Bristol, Earl, (Hervey.) .... 7,700 Bristol, Bishop, (Kaye.).. 6,440 Browni.ow, Earl, (Cust.) 4,400 BuccLjiuGH, Duke, (Scott.) . . 3,500 BucKrNGHAM,Marq.(Greret)27Ze.) 5,816 Buckinghamshire, Earl, (Ho- bart.) '... 31,500 BuLKELEY, Viscount, (Bulkcley.) Bute, Marquis, (Stuart.) 65,891 Byro>n, Baron, (Byron.) 2,700 Cadogan, Earl, (Cadogan.) 2,700 Caledon, Earl, (Alexander.).. 9,800 Calthorpe, Baron, (Calthorpe.) 7,500 Camden, Marquis, (Pratt) 4,150 Canterbury, Archbish. (Man- ' liers Sutton.) 41,800 Cardigan, Earl, (Brudenelh). . 1,282 Carleton, Viscount, (Carleton.) 3,232 Carlisle, Earl, (Howard.) Carlisle, Bishop, (Goorfen'OMg/t.) 8,310 Caernarvon, Earl, (Herbert.) 3,000 Carrick, Earl, (Butler.) 3,300 Carrington, Baron, (Smith.).. 1,900 Carteret, Baron, (Carteret.).. 2,000 Carysfort, Earl, (Proby.) .-. . . 6,31)7 Cassilis, Eavl, (Kennedy.) 160 Cathcart, Earl, (Cathcart .).. Q7 ,600 Cawdor, Baron, (Campbell.).. 2,700 CiiARLEMONT, Eaii, (Caulfield.) Charleville, Eaiil, (Bury.) Chatham, Earl, (Pitt.) 13,550 Chesterfield, Earl, (Stanhope.) Chester, Bishop, (Zo£0.) 11,950 Chichester, Earl, (Pelham.).. 9,000 Chichester, Bishop, (Bucknor.) 6,770 CH0LM0NDELEY,Marquis,(C/«0/- mondeley.) > 10,050 Churchill, Baron, (Spencer.) 500 Clancarty, Ear], (Trench.) ..37,408 Clare, Earl, (Fitzgibbon.) 8,689 Clarendon, Earl, (ViUiers.) 9,250 Clifden, Viscount, (Welbore Ellis.) 8,160 Clifford, Baron, (Clifford.) Clinton, Baron, (Trefusis .) . . 1,100 Cloyne, Bishop, (Bennct.) 7,500 Colchester, Baron, (Abbott.) 5,500 CoLviLLE, Baron, (Cohille.) .. 4,600 CoMBFRMERii, Baron, (Cotton.) 13,500 Conyngham, Marquis, (CoHi/Hg-- ham.) 3,600 Cork, Earl, (Boyle.) 2,800 Cork, Bishop, (taurfnce.) 6,400 CoSnwallis, Marquis, (Corn waUis.) 15,813 Coventry, Earl, (Coventry.). .. 700 Courtenay, Viscount, (Cour tenay. ) 1 1,855 CouiiTowN, Earl, (Stopford.) 9,800 CowPER, Earl, (Cowper.) ... .. .5,256 Craven, Earl, {Craven.} .... 2,800 Crewe, Baron, {Crewe.) 8,500 CuRzON, Viscount, {Curzon.) 2,400 Dacre, Baron, (Brand.) .... 800 Dalhousie, Earl, {Ramsay.).. 24,394 Darlington, Earl, {Vane.).. 1,400' Darnley, Earl, (Bligh.) Dartmouth, Earl, (Legge.) 9,00b St. David's, 'Bhhop,{Burgess.) 7,Z60 De Clifford, Baron,(C/j^ord.) De Dunstanville, Baron, (Basset.)...., 1,500 Delawar, Earl, {Ifest.) 11,200 De LA ZoucHE, Baron, (Bis/jojD.) Denbeigh, Earl, (fielding.) 1,800 Derb y. Earl, (Stanley.) ...... 8,000 Devonshire, Duke, (Caven dish.) .; 1,800 Digby, Earl, (Digby.) 6,700 Donegal, Marquis, {Chiches ter. ) 600 Donoughmore, Earl, (Hutch inson.) 4,377 Dorchester, Earl, (Carleton.) 3,500 Dormer, Baron, (Dormer.) .. 700 Dorset, Duke, (SAckville.) Douglas, Baron, {Douglas.). . 2,500" DowNE, Viscount, (Downey.) 1,500 DowNSHiRE, Marquis, (Hill.) 1,343 Dsogheda, Marquis,' (Moore.) 9,5l2 Due IE, Baron, (Moreton.) 800 Dudley and Ward, Viscount, (Ward.) Duncan, Viscount, (Duncan.) 3,783 Dundas, Baron, (Dundas.) .. 2,500 Durham, Bishop, (Shute Bar- rington.) , 61,700 Dynevor, Baron, (Rice) 6,800 Eglintoun, Larl, {Montgo mery.) ' Egmont, Earl, (Perceval.) .. Egrem.ont, Earl, (W^yndham.) 20, \00 Eldon, Baron, (&oif.) 50,400; Elgin, Earl, (Bruce.) 3,000- Ellenborough, Baron, (law.) 10,000 Ely, Marquis, (Loftus.) ....... 6,000 Ely, Bishop, (Sparke.) 21,340 Enniskillin, Earl, (Cole.) .. 8,300 Erne, Earl, (Creighton ) .... 1,700 Erskine, Baron, (Erskine.^ .. 8,500 Essex, Earl, (Capel.) 4,900 ' Exeter, Marquis, (Cecil.) 1,500 Exeter, Bishop, (Pelham.) .. 6,900 Exmouth, Baron, (PeWea).).. .10,450 Falmouth, Viscount, (Bosca- wen. ) 3 578 Farnham, Earl, -(MaxweU.) Ferns, Bishop, (Jocclyn!) 7,800 Ferrers, Earl, (Shirley.) 70O FiTz WILLIAM, Earl, (Fitz- willidtn.) 2,500 LIST OF PEERS. Foley, Baron, (Poley.) Forbes, Baron, {Forbes.) 8,400 FoRTESCUE, Earl, {PoHcscve.)' 6,401 Gage, Viscount, {Gage.) 363 Galloway, Earl, (Stewart.).. 9,845 GambwR, Baron, (Gamhicr.) .. 6,800 Gaednek, Viscount,(Gflrrf;ier.) 3,000 Glasgow, Earl, (Boy/e.) .... 2,900 Glastonbury, Baron, {Gren- vilte.) 4,450 Gloucester, Bishop, (Ryder.) 3,200 GosFORD, Earl, (Aeheson.) .. 3,000 Gordon, Duke, (Gordon.) ..20,990 Grafton, Duke, (Fitxroy.).. 22,6S6 Granard, Earl, (Forbes.) 5,600 Grantham, Baron, {ff^eddell Robinson) , 8,375 Grantley, Baron, (Norton.) 2,865 Granville, Viscount, (Gran- , ville Leveson Goiuer.) .... 2,300 Grenville, Baron, (Grenrillc.) 4,000 Gray, Baron, (Gray.) 200 Grey, Earl, (Grey.) 5,500 Grosvenor, Earl, (Grosvenor.) 4,479 GurLDFORD, Earl, (North.) ..^^,146 GwYDiR, Baron, (Burrel.) . . 3,350 Hamilton, Duke, (Hamilton.) 3,300 Hampden, Viscount, (Trevor Harnpden.) 1,200 Harborough, E.zr\,( Sherrar.d.) Harcourt, Earl, (Harcourt.) 4,200 HarOwicke, Earl, (Yorke.) . . 7,700 Harewood, Earl, (Lascelles.) Harrington, Earl, (Stanhope.) 9,220 Harris, Baron, (Harris.) .... 3,800 Harrowby, Earl, f^rfcr.; .. 11,902 Hastings, Marq. (Rawdon.) 27, iiyo Hawke, Baron, (Hawke.) Headfort, Marq. (Taylour.) 4,200 Hereford, Vise. (Devereux.) 1,200 Hereford, Bishop, (Hunting- ford.) ..- 7,680 Hertford, Marquis, (Ingra7n Conway Seymour.) 34,578 Hill, Baron, (Hill.) 9,800 Holland, Baron, (Fox.) Hood, Viscounf, (Hood.) 2,525 Hopetown, Earl, (Hope.) 15,60o Home, Earl, (Home.) 2,800 Howard de Walden, Baron, (Ellis.) • 500 Howard of Effingham, Baron, (Howard.) 3,000 Huntin GDON, Earl, (Hastings.) 200 Huntley, Marquis, (Gordon.) 2,000 Hutchinson, Baron, (Hutchin son.) 4,000 Ilchester, EarV, (Strangcways ) 4,800 Jersey, Earl, (P^illiers.) 500 Keith, Baron, (Elphinstone.) 33,600 Kellie, Baron, (Erskine.) Kenvon, QaTon, (Ken'gon.} . . i , ft,974 King, Baron, (King.) KiNNouL, Earl, (Haye Drum mond.) 4,500 Kingston, Earl, (King.) 6,400 Lake, Viscount, (Lake.) 7,300 Landaff, Bp. (Fan Mildert.) 1,540 Lansdowne, Marquis, (Petty.) Lauderdale, Earl, (Maitland.) 36,600 Le Despenser, Baron, (Staple- ton.) 4,140 huv.Ds, Duke, (Osborne.) ...^ &,000 Leinster, Duke, (Fitzgerald'.) Litchfield, Bp. (CornwaUis.) 12,590 LiLFORD, ^sxon, (Powys.) ...20,500 Limerick, Earl, (Perry. ^ .... 3,5(>0 Lincoln, Bishop, (Unknown.) '8,380 Lindsay, Earl, (Bej-iie.) ...... 50O Liverpool, Earl, (Jenkinson.)33,45 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 9 from and after the passing of this Act, shall be and is hereby deprived of the title of Queen, and all of the prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemptions appertaining to her as Queen Consort of this realm ; and that her said Majesty shall, frc>m and after the passing of this Act, for ever be disabled and ren dered incapable of using, exercising, and enjoying the same, or any of them ; and moreover, that the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth, be, and the .said is, hereby from henceforth for ever wholly dissolved, annulled, and made void, to all intents, constructions, and purposes- whatsoever." This extraordinary Bill was read a first lime July 5, and ordered to be read a second time August 17. Lord Liverpool moved that. the House should be summoned on that day, and accordingly the Lord Chancellor issued cir culars tu their Lordships. Thursday, August 17. -This day, pursuant to the order of the House, their Lordships met, and proceeded to call over tlie House at ten o'clock. Soon after nine o'clock the Peers began to take their seats in the body of the House ; and several members of the House of Commons, amongst whom we observed Mr. Tierney, Mr. Calcraft, Mr. Grenfell, &c. took up stations near the throne. The space reserved for the Queen's counsel, the short-hand writer, &c. was provided with three small desks. On these five ink-stands were placed, with a supply of pens, ink, paper, and wafers. No seats were prepared, but .chairs were subsequently supplied. As ten o'clock approached the Peers arrived in considerable numbers. At twenty-five minutes to nine the Lord Chancellor arrived, and took his seat on the wool sack. The Lord Bishop of Landaff, as the junior bishop, then read prayers. Soon afterwards Sir Charles Abbott, (Chief-Justice of the King's Bench,) together with Mr. Justice Holroyd and Mr. Justice Best, entered the House. They were soon after followed by Lord Chief-Baron Richards and Mr. Baron Garrow. The Lord Chief-Justice of the Court of Common Pleas arrived immediately after wards. .\t ten o'clock- precisely the order of the house was read for calling over the names of the Peers by Mr. Cooper, deputy clerk of Parliament, The following Peers were excused from attendance, on account either of indisposition, age, the death of a near relative, or having been abroad^at the time when the order for the second reading of the bill was fixed by me House : — Lord Churchill, Lord Melbourne, Lord Lynedoch, Lord Gardiner, Lord Crewe, Lord Carysfort, Lord Gower, Lord Riversdale, Lord Lilford, Lord Wodehouse, Lord Glastonbury, Lord Cawdor, Lord De Dunstanville, Lord Middleton, Lord Thurlow, Lord Braybrooke, Lord Carleton, Lord Shannon, Marquis of Waterford, Lord Bulkeley, Lord Cathcart, Lord Vernon, Lord Ashburton, Lord Boyle, Lord Sinclair, Lord Clifford, Lord Byron, Lord Le Despencer, Bishop of Rochester, Bishop of Carlisle, Bishop of Norwich, Bishoji of Salisbury, Bishop of Chichester, Bishop of Hereford, Bishop of Durham, Viscount Gordon, Viscount Dudley and Ward, Viscount Maynard, Earl Craven, Earl Onslow, Lord Courtenay, Lord Cholmondeley, Lord O'Neill, Lord Talbot, Lord Elgin. Lord Coventry, Lord Bute, the Duke of Marlbordugh, and the Duke of Leeds. Lord Petre, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Duke of Norfolk, were exempted from the call of the House, they being Roman Catholics. Lord Erskine, on being called, appeared, and stated, that he was upwards of seventy years of age, but he bad '^l' '^ ^^^ ^^^Y *9 attend the House upon the. present occasion. He hoped, however, he should be allowed to avail 10 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN*. himself of that objection, if be should feel it necessary, at any future period. ' While the Lord Chancellor was reading over the names,' loud and con tinued shoutings, with the rolling of drums, were heard from without. The ¦windows of the House being all open, the peals of acclamation found an easy admittance, and the House rang with the thunders of the multitude. In a short time after the Queen entered by the passage leading from the ""ob'ng- ^ room which is situated on the right of the throne. She was accompanied' by Lady Ann Hamilton, who, with Lord A. Hamilton, stood close to her during the whole of the day. She was seated in an.arm chair, on the right of the throne, and within the space allotted to the members of the House of Com.^ mons. On her entrance all the Peers rose to receive her; she teUified her feelings by a graceful obeisance, and though evidently ranch affected by the novel, scene to which she was intioduced, took her seat with, becoming grace and dignity. She was dressed in black 'sarcenet, very richly trimmed with lace ; a large white veil partially concealed her features, and, tailing in a tasteful drapery on her bosom, rendered her figure vvhen she arose from her chair, not merely interesting, but highly commanding. . The list being finished, the Lord Chancellor said he had received a letter from the Duke of Sussex, desiring to be excused attendance on the ground of consanguinity, which was allowed. The Duke of York said, no person could present a' stronger elaim to excuse on such ground than fie could, but he felt it his duty, however painful, to a:ttend. The Earl of Liverpool ao-w moved the order of the day for the second read ing of the Bill of Pains and Penalties. . The Duke of Leinsfer, with a view of ending the whole business, moved- the rescinding of that order. ' On this the house divided — " Contents 41 | Non-Contents- • • '200 The Earl of Carnarvon spoke in the strongest terms against Bills of Pains and Penalties, as contrary to every principle of equity or justice. The bill in question was founded on a fictitious opinion that the State had to do with the conduct of the Queen abroad ; than which, he contended, nothing was more unfounded and erroneous. Earl Grey and the Marquis of Lansdoton did not approve of such bills generally j but conceived there were cases in which they were nectssary : and, as the bill in question was now brought forward, they saw no way open but to proceed to hear evidence on it. They, however, both recom mended that the opinions of the Judges should be taken on the question, whether adultery on the part of the wife of the King's eldest son zvith a foreigner, was high treason, or constituted a crime cognizable by any knowi) law ? The House agreed to this recommendation ; and the Judges havinc retired for a short time, on their return announced it as their opinion, , that such conduct was- neither high treason, nor violated any known law, because the person being a foreigner, owed no allegiance to the King of England, and therefore committed no offence; and, as he committed no offence, the person participating committed no offence in law. The question, that Counsel be called in, was then ptit and carried ; when the folding doors behind'the bar were thrown open, and Messrs. Broiigham,' Dehma'n, Lushirigtofi, Williams, Tiridal, and Wild, followed by Mr. Vizard, appeared in behalf of her Majesty. A moment after, the Attorney and TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 11 Solicitor General, the King's Advocate, Dr. Adam, and Mr. Park, entered by the door commonly appropriated to strangers. They were attended by the Solicilor (o the Treasury, and by Mr. I'owell, who attended tlio Milan Commi^sion. As. soon ns the Couiisil pre^enttd themselves al tjie bar. The Duke of flamilton ix'quo.-.ted to know hy wliat authority the Attorney. General stood in thul place?— on whose part Iu; appeared? — arid by whom he had been instructed lo appear ? The Atlurney-Gencral snid, he attended in consequence of an order of their Lordships, which had breii bcrved upon him hy the Gentleman Usher of the 151ack Rod. The Duke of //amzVto/i begged to repeat his second question. By whom bad the Attorney-General been instructed to appear on the present occasion ? — He wished to know from whom that gentleman's instructions had pro-, ceeded. The J; to discharge this part of 'his duty to his illustrious client, others will not. i6 TRIAL OF THE QUjiEN- the Queen abroad, that we are to think they are to have more force than con' duct less equivocal at home ? That argument, and every thing resulting from it, I willingly postpone till the day of necessity ; and, in the same way I dismiss, for the present, all other questions respecting the conduct o"^ ^on. nexions of any parties previous to marriage. These I say not one word about; they are dangerous and tremendous questions, the consequences of discusstfig which, at the present moment, I will not even trust myself to describe. At present, I hold them to be needless to the safety of my client; but, when the necessity arrives, an advocate knows but one duty, and, cost what it may, .he must discharge it. Be the consequences what they may, to any other per sons, powers, principalities, dominions, or nations, an advocate is bound to do his duty ; and I sjiall exert every means in my power to put a stop to this bill. But, when I am told that a case of absolute necessity for the measure is made out because the Queen has been guilty of improper familiarities, (though I must look at the bill itself for the nice distinctions and refined expressions found in it,) because she has thought fit to raise fi:om low situations, officers who had served other people in menial capacities, because she had treated them with unbecoming intimacy, because she had advanced them, and be stowed marks of favour and distinction upon them, because sjje had created an order, and conducted herself in public and private with offensive familiarity ; I cannot help asking, if these matters are, so fatal to the honour and dignity of the crown, nay, to the very peace of the nation, (for what else can justify a bill like this i) why it is only resorted to at the present moment ? The bill charges' even a licentious, disgraceful, and adulterous intercow^e, and, there fore, its supporters say it is absolutely necessary for the House to interpose. But I appeal to the House, for I am compelled to do so, whether this is Jiot only untrue, but whether it is not known to be untrue. The bill itself speaks falsely, and I will tell you why I say so. Are we arrived, in this age, at that highest pitch of polish in society when we shall be afraid to call things by their proper names, yet shall not scruple to punish by express laws in .offence in the weaker sex which has been passed over in the stronger ? Have we indeed reached that stage ? I trust I shall not hear it said in this place; '-I hope that spirit of justice which I believe pervades this House at large will prevent it. But, if 'not, I will appeal to the spirit of holiness, and to the heads of the church, now ranged before me, whether adultery is to be consider; ©d only a crime in woman. I make the. same confident appeal, and to the same quarter, when I ask whether the crown can be dishonoured, the fame of the country tarnished, and the morals of the people put in jeopardy ; if an adulteroms intercourse, (which no one ventures to call adultery,) sliall be proved against a lady, when that which I venture to call adultery, becatise the.exalted individual himself has confessed it to be so, has actually been committed by a PRINCE. It is with the utmost pain that I make this statement : it is wrung from me by hard compulsion ; for there is not a inan who acknowledges witi a deeper sense of gratitude than I do all the obligations which this countrj and Europe owe to that illustrious individual. I say it not, God forbid I should, to visit harshly upon him any of the failings of our common nature, much less to alter in one iota my recorded sense of the baseness of that con spiracy by which those failings were dragged before the public. I bring it forward beciause it is in truth an answer to this. case. Why was no bill of de- gradation brought in, in 1809, after the resolution of the House of CoiiiinoAJi)' and a fiiU confession on behalf of the party accused, that he had been guilt)' of'' most immoral and'unbecoming .conduct f" All this, I say, was well known to the authors of the present bill ; foo one of themtselves penned the vei:} TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 17 ^'ords I have Just read to the House. I ask, therefore, whether there is any possibility of replying to this objection, but in one short way, that all men may do all they please, however cxallcd their station, however intimately Connected with the crown, and with the highest intero-ils of the slate: that their conduct is pert'octly indifferent ; but, hi the tooth of slander once fix upon a defenceless fehialc of the I'ainilv, who has been lesiding abroad, who has been allow ed to expatriate herself; who has been assisted in removing from the_ country and even cherished to keep away from it ; then, at that instant, the venom must distil, and she must be per.secuted and prosecuted, under the canting, hypocritical, and disgusting pretence that the character of the country and the honour of the crown are at stake. Whether all of us, nearer to the object, do or do not see throygh the flimsy pretext, be assured that the good sense of the nation cannot be deceived, and that those at a distance will be both shocked and astonished. The people at large must look upon it as something too ridiculous to be examined ; I, myselfj can hardly use decorous terms in speakingof it, and they, in their homely language, will assert that it is an attempt to accomplish one purpose under the colour of another. " Here » a inan," they will say, '' who wishes to get rid of his wife ; ie talks of the honour and safety nf the country, yet its dearest interests, its peace, its morals, and its happiness are to be sacrificed to gratify his desires.* The learned counsel then went on to challenge the other side to produce an instance on record where any marriage had been dissolved excepting for adultery, and on the application of the injured party. The standing orders of the House were express on this subject, and one of them even provided ~ that the husband himself should be examined, in order to show that there was no collusion, and that he stood rectus in curia, If the House wished to know in what light marriage was regarded by the law of the land, (the bill showed in what light some people regarded adjiltery, or rather a crime not known to the law, called " adulterous intercourse,' ) he could submit to them the opinions of the soundest lawyers, and he would appeal in an especial manner on this point to the guardians of the sanctity of that holy contract; He would content himself, however, with one of the latest authorities, .one of the greatest consistorial judges, who had described it in language npt more eloquent than just. He alluded to Sir William Scott, in the case^ of " Dalrymple and Dalrymple," in answer to some foolish objection, tending to underrate the marriage contract. " Marriage is a contract (he said) of" natural law : it is the parent, not the child, of civil society. In civil society, it is true, it becomes' a civil contract, endued with c^vil con* sequences ; but, in most civilized countries", it has the sanction of religion superadded.- It then becomes a religious as well as a civil contract, and it is a- great mistake to suppose, that because it is a civil contract it is not a religious contract. Heaven itself is a party to it, and the consent of the individuals is pledged to each other, ratified and confirmed by a vow." The House tlien was required by this bill to interpose a sacrilegious hand between those parties. whom God had joined, and whom no man should sever : it was called upon to cut the holy knot ; first, because' the parties had disregarded its sacred obligation ; and secondly, because the husband himself did not come forward to complain For let it be observed, that this was the way in which • Aye '¦ here's the rub." He wants anothei; wife, nothing morfe. Lord tiv^rpool may talk abo'iit'the state and not the kirig being at issue, till doomsday ;|. no one will believte hilii. The thiilg'is so plain.' As to the Uanbar of the familythat, Jn one sense, is gone ; and as to the succession^ — ps^aw, it is foolish now to think about heirs. 3 1§ I TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. it was put, in order to get rid of some of the stringent arguments against the bill. The King, ' it was asserted, was not concerned : he sent no counsel to the house; and the Attorney-General, with his usual ingenuity, prevented its being wrung from him that the King was his client. It ^^^ "® private bill; it was a state measure, justified by state necessity; and he had astutely avoided every thing that could show any other connexion than with the state. The Attorney-General , had said that he was merely the organ ot the House, and that he was desired to defend the bill for the sake ot the public at large. Up had accordingly sought for information and instruction, andfor this purpose he found no place more convenient than the'i^ome- Deparlment, and no person more anxious to aid him than the Home Secretary. He might have gone further and fared worse ; and accordingly he made his appearance at the bar as counsel for nobody. Thus the King made no com-. plaint, and the llotise was called upon to dissolve the marriage without the suggestion of either of the parties most interested. The whole, in fact. Was unprecedented, illegal, in opposition to all analogy, ahd in the teeth of the most sacred part of civil and ecclesiastical justice. Perhaps he might be allowed further to state, that the mode of proceeding afforded sufficient evidence to show that the story of degradation and dishonour was a mere pretence from beginning to end. The only way to judge of tlie sincerity of men's professions, was to look at their conduct : it was good and wholesome at all times and with all sorts of men ; but at no time and with no sort of men more so than in our own, and with politicians such as the authors of this measure. One little action was worth more than a volume of writing, or a week of speaking ; and had the conduct of ministers been such as to make the House believe that they credited one word of the preamble ? As his learned friend disavowed all connexion with them, and as they presented the papers in which it originated, . they must be looked upon as the authors of the bill ; and had their actions been consistent with the allegations of the pream ble ? IVho had encouraged the 2ueen to go abroad ? When that illustrious; personage, worn out by all she had experienced in this country, naturally began to think repose- a blessing, who had recommended that she should seek it on the' Continent? Who had opposed the advice given by the friends of the Qiieen, to which they had set their hands, and he (Mr. Brougham) among them, that they would answer vyith their heads for her safety while in Englarid, but that when abroad she , would be surrounded by foreigners, spies, and infonmers ? Who had counteracted this faithful suggestion ? Who but those who viere now arrayed against her, with a, green bag qf documentary evidence in the one hand, and this bill of degradation in the other ?* How happened it that they had never before thought of the character of the country,, the honour of -• It is lamentable to see liow our poor Queen Jias been betrayed by unprincipled lawyers. Her defenders in 1806, are now her prosecutors. Lord Eldon, Mr. Perceval, and Sit Thomas Flomer, were then her legal advisers. It was these gentlemen, who wrote the memorable letter of September, 1806, in vindication of the Pbincess, and where they rail in good round teiima about " the foul malice and falsehood of her accusers," and where they justly stigmatizft the machinations of the enemies of het Royal Highness as a " fmal eotispiracy of social AND DOMESTIC TEEASON." But things have Changed ; Lord Eldon was then out of place ; the Wmos were in power : " My uncle is King of Denmark, arid those who made mouths at bim while my fathet lived, now give twenty, forty, fifty, nay a hundred ducats for his picture in little." Jn 1814, Mr. Canning prevailed upon the Princess to go abtoad. The late Mr. Whilbread and Mr. Brougham, her confidential advisers, endeavoured to dissuade her from the step. They warned her- Royal Highness of all that has come pass : , they said She would be surrounded by foieigneis, spies, and informers, and it was .pnly in England that she would be safe from their machinations. The event has veiified their predictions. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 19 the Royal Family, and the dignity of the throne ? Where was their boasted sagacity, when these evil counsellors could not foresee what might be the consequences of the step they were so earnestly recommending.' Then tliere was no whisper of any thing of the sort ; all was to be ease, tranquillity, and liberty, for the rest of her Majesty's lite : there was to be no watching, no> prying, no spying, no asking " why do you do so or so f" but all was to be, kindness and toleration. With these promises, the next thing was to assist the Queen to depart. The ship of war, \vhich. was refused to bring her back, had been readily granted to take her away. Money was also offered with equal liberality for her outfit, and her residence abroad commenced under-the happiest auspices. Yet reports soon came over ; they increased by degrees ; the slander became blacker and more malignant; and as early as four years ago it had assumed a certain cohsistency. Still there was no jealous watching. no hunting for evidence, and no hint given to the Queen fhat it would be fit to be more guarded in her conduct : the character of the, country and the honour of the Crown were then never dreamed of. Ministers had never said " Retum; this is dangerous— the country suffers— the Crown is dis-^ honoured— the royal Family degraded, by these calumnious reports." On the contrary, they had done every thing to encourage her staying; and he (Mr. Brougham) would venture to stake his existence that any man would have been deemed an enemy, and have had the Court doors flung in his face, who should have had tlie hardihood to counsel that her Royal Highness should have been requested to re-visit this country. Yet these very men, after forcing her away — after aiding, abetting, and encouraging a foreign resi dence — after taking no one step to put an end to that which they them selves alleged to be the sole cause of the evil : even at the twelfth hour, and when the twelfth hour was about to toll, did they then come with a request that she should return ? Did they then suggest that her Majesty, having changed her station, could no longer live abroad with safety — that what might be good for a Princess was evil for a Queen ? Did they come forward with any plain frank disclosure that some inquiry might be rendered necessary — that reports had got abroad so malignant that they could not be overlooked — that suspicion attached, and that that suspicion must be removed ? Was any thing of this sort done, not in kindness to the Queen, but in com passion to the long-suffering people of England, now agitated by this great question ? No such thing : to the last moment .she was warned not to come back: she was to be pensioned, largely pensioned, for not coming home; and she was to enjoy the rank she had degraded, and the privileges she had forfeited. She was to have an income to eriable her to be wicked on a larger scale: all levity, all indiscretion, even "adulterous interc'ourse,'' was to be pardoned on one condition, and that condition was, that she should continue abroad, before the eyes of foreigners who envied and hated us; she was to be the degrading spectacle of the Queen of this country, without one of the virtues that ought to belong to her sex and her condition. With these facts before him„ he must have a mind capable of swallowing the most monstrous improbabilities who could lend himself for one moment to the belief that ministers gave credit to the preamble of the bill. It would never have been heard of if the Queen had returned from Calais ; but her landing at Dover called up all those phaptoms of national degradation and insulted honour, of AvhichsomuCh had recently been heard: they were all raised by the foot which she set upon the English shore; and if she had consented to restrain it, she might still have lived without imputation, at least from the quarter in which it now originated. " I end here (said Mr. Brougham) what I have t©. 20 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN^. urge, not that I have nothing more to bring forward, but because I am sui-e that your Lordships are men of .justice, that you are men of principle, men of ordinary sagacity, and, above all, that you are men of honour. I have made my appeaf to you upon this bill, and I feel confident that I have not "made it in vain. True it is that your committee has reported in its tavour, but that cannot pledge the House ; and he is the greatest ol all to9ls who consults his apparent consistency at the expense of his absolute ruin, the sooner you retrace the step into which you may have been led at an unwary. moment, the greater will be the service you render yoiir country : if you decide that this bill ought not to proceed, you will be the saviours of the state, and indeed promote the substantial welfare of the kingdom, and th« trftest honour of the Crown." j. u The Lord .Chancellor, as soon as Mr. Brougham had retired from the bar, said, that the House, which admitted but two counsel to be heard, would hear the other counsel now. ~- > Mr. Denmark at this late hour of the day, when the understood period for the termination of business had arrived, after an anxious attendance, and in his present state of health, trusted that their Lordships would extend to hira their indulgence by granting him time, till to-morrow. ] The Earl of Liverpool was most ready to comply with the request of the learned Counsel, and suggested the propriety of an adjournment. The Lord Chancellor added, that the House would proceed to-morrow, and that only two counsel would be heard for or against the bill. Adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock. Names of witnesses jnovedfor to be summoned on behalf of the Queen. The Earl of Guildford, The Earl of Landaff, . The Lord Glenbervie, The Lady Charlotte Bury, T'he Lady Charlotte Lindsay, Sir William Gell, The Lady Elizabeth Forbes, The Hon. Keppel Craven, The Hon. William Burrell, The Earl of Clare, Anthony Buller St. Leger, Esq. The Lord Granville Somerset, Henry Holland, M.D. The Lord Frederick Montague,- Mills, Esq. The Lady William Bentinck. The Hon. Captain King, SECOND DAY.— Friday, August 18. Tills morning, at a few minutes before ten o'clock, the Lord Chaiicellor' arrived and took his seat upon the woolsack. Prayers were then read by the Bishop of ^andaff, and ^ after calling over the House and despatching some other business- not connected with the trial the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod (Mr. Quarme) was directed to call in the counsel, who'entered together, first the Attorney-General and Mr. Brougham, next the Solicitor-General and Mr. Denman, through the folding doors behind the bar. Mr. Denman Commenced his address to the House by thanking their Lord- = ships for the indulgence which had on the preceding day been extended to him. It now becaine his duty, the learned counsel said, to state to the House the objections he had to urge against the bill which was before them ; and' it would require no argument of his to convince their Lordships that the queslipn to which he was about to address hinis^lf— the principle of the bill — -vya? as open to opposition in the present stage of the prdceediqgs as it could have TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 21 been at any previous period. That fact had been fidly established in the case of the Duchess of Norf oik ; and, indeed, if he were to be considered as precluded by any thing which had pressed from entering into the fullest' dis cussion of the present and of the original measure, it would be waste of time for him to proceed at all. He shouhl, however, address himself tjx, the, sub ject just as if no proceedings had yet been taken, and as if the bill were now for the first time presented to a House of Peers which, in pbinl of law as;well as in point of fact, had never heard one syllable of the intentions of those by whom the bill had been promoted. If, then, it was open to the House at this time lo enter into a full consideration of the principles of tlie bill in all its bearings, it followed of necessity, that it the House, as it was now constituted, should happen to take a dift'erent view of the question from that which had been acted upon, there would be no inconsistency, no impropriety, no re tractation in their adopting such view. The House had no steps to retrace, because no steps had been taken — because the House stood at the 'present moment upon the very threshold of the measure; and upon that threshold he (Mr. Z)eH)«a/i) would make his first stand against it. He had looked at this bill, of tremendous importance, attentively, and to the principle of it he thought it impossible for an) constitutional or legal mind not to feel the strongest aversion- but he must confess that, proceeding technically, he felt some diffi culty in raising the point with which he was to contend. When he read the bill, and asked himself what particular principle he should assail, he was at a loss to abstract that particular point from the mass ; he was puzzled to see what was the special doctrine meant to be established ; what was the precedent supposed lo be followed, or sought to be laid down ; what were the hghts derived from the past, or what the example held up to the future. It Was in vain that he had tried to abstract the bill; and, although he had exerted his faculties upon the preamble, he could draw from that document no precise charge — he could grapple with nothing which directly affected-either the con duct, the character, or the interests of his client. ' Before he pursued that part of his subject, however, he.felt it his dut)' to say, that he was even now addressing their Lordships under an election which his client had Ijeen- eoid- pelled to make. He did not complain of that which to the House had seemed just ; but, with reference to the possibility of a change of circumstances, he thought proper to remind the House, that those for whom he appeared had been compelled to that election, and that the election so made ought not -to be captiously held as binding upon them against any change of measures which a change of circumstances might induce. There was another point, too, upon which her. Majesty's counsel had been put to their election, and upon which he doubted if they had exercised a wise discretion on the part of their client. l7pon other occasions of a similar nature both common lawyers and civilians had been heard; but upon the present important question, aquestion involving those principles which formed the very basis of the common law, and, -com promising equally those rules of ecclesiastical polity, and those piriilciples which governed the nearest relations of social life,' only one common lawyer and one civilian, or two common lawyers, were permitted to address the House. The effect of that order had been to deprive him of the assistance of a learned friend who would have done justice to many points upon which he (Mr. Denman) was almost vvhoUy uninformed ; but, under all disadvantages, he appeared before their Lordships — he' appeared in the execution of that important duty which was cast upon hira by his office— an office which, in the present hour of trialand of difficulty, he prized far more ihighly than the proudest favours -v^hich royalty coiild Confer ih the- moment of pr^spterity. He 22 ,TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. appeared before the House in the performance of that, duty ; atid if he failed, the failure would be owing to his want of talent, and not to any want of zeal for the cause which he was pleading. The proceedings' of the Secret Com mittee, (the learned counsel continued,) who had occupied themselves in the examination of certain written papers, unvouched, he believed, by any livmg witness, had been compared to the proceedings of the Grand Jury. He would not travel over the ground so often trodden in contrasting the difference be tween the two jurisdictions ; but this Secret Committee, compared to a Grand- Jury, deputed to find bills, was not the body from which the present bill had emanated. The bill had been set up in consequence of the recommenda- tion of the Secret Committee ; but that body had not found that the facts stated were in proof before theip, or that the present was the proper mode of, bringing those facts to investigation and to punishment. The Secret Com-' mittee had merely recommended a solemn inquiry ; they had merely declared that, upon examining the documents laid before them, they found, upon the concurrent testimony of various persons residing in different parts of Europe, charges deeply affecting the honour of the Queen — charges so deeply concerning, npt only the dignity of the Crown, but the moral, feehng of the country, as to call for a solemn inquiry ; and that it was their opinion that such an inquiry would be most conveniently effected through the. medium of a legislative proceeding. The Secret Committee had not declaredj that the evidence of those various persons was true, or even that the docu ments were authentic. They had recommended a solemn inquiry, not a bill of divorce and degradation. That bill had been laid before the House, not by the Committee, but by an individual peer— filling, no doubt, a situation of high responsibility in the government, but, in the present case, simply preferring the bill as any other peer in that House might have preferred it. He took it for granted that the bill had not been drawn by the noble, Earl who had presented it; he ,did not inquire whether it had been drawn by the learned Attorney-General ; but he. was certain that he need make no apology for declaring that he should examine it as narrowly and with as much fearless-.] ness as if it were a common indictment preferred at the lowest tribunal to i which a subject of the country could be summoned. When he looked at the' terms of the bill (for he could find no abstract principle belonging to it) he saw no state necessity mentioned, no public inconvenience pressed, as a cause why it should pass.' But, to look for a moment at the recital of this bill— this ebullition, as it seemed to be, of moral feeling on the part of the party who drew it — this bill which was to express the deep feeling which the House of Commons entertained of the " scandalou.s, vicious, anddmmoral" conduct; of the Queen. In 1 8 14, her Majesty, then Princess of Wales, being at Milan,:, engaged in her service one Bartolomeo Bergami, a foreigner of low staliotii^ who had before served in a similar capacity. Well, there was nothing very scandalous or vicious in that.* And after the said Bartolomeo Bergami had . • Certainly not. If a man possess .merit, his first origin signifies little. But how mon strous it is for the framets of this bill to turn up theit noses at lew birth. Neatly the whole of the piesent Cabinet are descended only in the second, most of them in the first degreSi from the dregs of the people. Certainly there never -was such an administration before of coal-merchants, pamphlet-hawkers, Scotch pedlars, quacks, play-actoie, and so forth. AU this, however, would signify nothing, wete they either hmest ot wise, but God knows they are neither. But again, as to conferring favours on men in low statixms^ this has not been con fined to her piesent Majesty. We remember a poor old German fiddler, Nicholi, who ^came over with the late virtuous Queen, was an object of her particular favour. This Nicholi, (or Nicliolai, as it has been Englishified, the better to gull Jolin Bull,) was made a page of the back stairs, and is now on the pension list. He had three sons, all well provided for. Oai of them, the exact prototype of hu fiddling father, naf, by dint of the Queen's favour, pro- TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 23 so entered the service of the Princess of Wales, a most unbecoming and degrading intimacy commenced between them. Whether any given inti macy was unbecoming or degrading, must be very much a matter of opinion ; and that which one of their Lordships might deem derogatory, might, by another, be held perfectly fitting for her Majesty's rank and station. The learned counsel then read through a variety of the charges against her Majesty, among which it was impossible, he contended, to discover any thing either scandalous, unbecoming, or disgraceful — any thing which one human being had a right to censure in the conduct of another, or any thing which could hone.stly be imputed as a crime, either in a court of justice or in a legislative assembly. But Ihis proceeding had been likened to an ordinary bill of indictment. •' What," said Mr. Denman, " is it common, in bills of indictment, to state the evidence against the party.? — to state the facts which perhaps have governed the decision of the Grand Jury upon their ex-parte examination ? — to place upon the record, not a plain, honest, intelligible charge, but the evidence, the very evidence, upon which they have brought their own minds to a conclusion, perhaps ,most uncharitable and unjust } Is there any thing in bills of indict ment insidious, ensnaring, and Jesuitical ? — any thing that leaves the party accused in doubt and darkness as to the crime he is accused of ? No : the law of England, that law which may be truly called the perfection of reason, of justice, and of humanity, is most careful that no individual shall ever be charged with an offence, the nature of which he shall not understand, and to which he shall not be prepared, if innocent, with an immediate answer. If I were to indict a man for murder, should I, upon the face of the indict ment, state more than that he, with malice aforethought, &c. struck the blow ? Should I say, that John Thomas had been for ten years an enemy of the deceased .? — that he had threatened him, and that he was seen to watch and to way-lay him ? Then why, for Heaven's sake, in this most solemn pro ceeding, where, from the nature of the offence charged — from the nature of the circumstances attending it — from the nature of the evidence by which it is to be established, it becomes most peculiarly just, most absolutely necessary, if justice is intended, that the defendant should have the most clear and dis tinct notice, the most precise advertisement and warning of the facts with which she is charged — why are circumstances, which are at best but evidence from which the fad may be inferred, why are those circumstances 'to be blazoned upon the face of the indictment ?" [Here the learned gentlemen's argument was interrupted by the enfranoe of the Queen. The house, as on the former day, rose to receive her Majes ty, who, attended by Lady Ann Hamilton, took her seat within the bar, and immediately in front of her counsel.] Mr. Denman continued. — It was for these reasons that he protested against the principle of the bill, which he could only view as an enumeration of doubtful circumstances proceeding upon an ex-parte statement, capable pro-, bably of a complete and satisfactory answer, but certain to excite prejudice against the party accused, and supposed to be put fairly and impartially upon trial. But he would proceed for a moment with the language of the bill. It moted from a seaond captainoy in the engineers, to a lieutenant-colonelcy in the toyat staff coips. On it being represented to the late King that it could not be done ; he said " it must be done." ", A-la-mode Gerttianorum ¦ - ¦ «' Heigh, diddle, diddle, the Cat and the/Fiddle." The fiddler's son is now. we twliere, ma.ior-geneial. 24 TRIAL OF THE QUEtlif. stated, "that her Majesty the Queen, wholly re^Trdless of her honour and of her character, and unmindful of her duty to her husband, conduetdd herself to the said Bartolomeo Bergami, and, in other i-espects, both in pubBon her oath to characterize, she might be forced, as an honest woman, to say v/ns flirting ? The writer of that passage had, perhaps withoitt knowing it, adopted ahnost word for word the language of Hume ih his obsiervations on the fall and character of Anne Boleyn;— " Anne, though she appears to have been entirely innocent, and even virtuous in her conduct, hjd a certain gaiety, if not levity, of character, which threw her off her guard, and made her less cjrcum.spect than her situation required. Her education in France rendered her more prone to those freedoms, and it was with difficulty she conformed herself to that strict ceremonial practised in the Court of Eng land." He (Mr. Denman) would not pause for the application ; he was con tent with the passage. It was for minds differently constituted from that of her Majesty to continue on all occasions in the maintenarxe of strict reserve, and never to descend to the free and natural intercourse of society. An excel lent and illustrious prince had taken a pride in being esteemed for the amenity of his disposition, and for the ease with which he was wont to lose sight of his, dignity 4u the association of his friends. When he was described as ornni as- peritate carens, he deemed that no trivial aidogy was pronounced upon him. But the most remarkable instance of familial iiy between personages of high rank and those of an humble station, which had come to his knowledge, was that of an English sovereign and a waiter'^at a tavern. It was said to have occurred when the illustrious party was Prince of Wales, during which period » note was once delivered to him, commencing in this way — "Sam Spriggs, of the Cocoa-tree, sends his compliments to his Royal Highness." The Prince, on afterwards meeting with Mr. Spriggs, observed to him, " This may he: very well between you and me, Sam ; but, for God's sake, do not play these tricks with our high fellows; it would never do with Norfolk or Arundel.-' fA loud laugh.) It was impossible that their Lordships should not have heard of the terms which had been offered to his illustrious client, on condition -of her leaving this country. It was well known that she had been offered a royaj yacht to convey her to the Continent — that her royal rank was recognised — that she had been entreated to accept 60,0001. a year— and that it had been also in contemplation to present to her "the grateful acknowledgments of both Houses of Parliament for acceding to their wishes. Now thtfy'all knew what was meant by a deductio ad absurdum ; and if the King's ministers had really made such proposals to her Majesty, the present Jsill was an absurdity. It, •with the same knowledge which they now possessed of the facts and circuin- stances alluded to in the report of the secret committee, they had submitted any terms at all similar to tho.se he had just stated, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that the charges against her Majesty were false. A message from the crown had been delivered to them, stating that the Queon had arrived in this country, and therefore it was thought right to communicate certain papers to their Lordships. But if, subsequently tp this proceeding, a negotiation had taken place in which the proposals to which he had alluded were made and rejected, the preamble of this bill ought to recite, instead of the hbellou? matter which it contained, the history of that negotiation. The bill was intror .duced on account of the Queen's arrival, not for the .sake of the honour or A fiiff TRIAL OP THE QUEEIT. (dignity of the crown. The proposals were rejected because accompanied fey a condition which her Majesty regarded as illegal, and because she was unwil ling to acquiesce in any inference wbicb some persons might be disposed to draw from the omission of her pame in the prayers of our church. Thefefore it was that she must now be stigmatised and degraded, and her Royal Consort be allowed to contract a second marriage. The preamble of the present bill was wholly irreconcileable to the recorded facts of th is extraordinary case, ite did not wish to treat the subject with levity, but he must say that he had almost. conceived himself to be in a theatre when he saw so many noble lords on a cpmmittee, each producing, as it \vere, his own little fact, and adding some new circumstance, in order to make out, if possible, a substantive offence. He thought he heard one noble person observe that a menial servant had been promoted, another that an order of merit had been conferred on him, and a third that the Queen's deportment did not correspond with her dignity. A fo.urth, in tJie spirit of Mrs. CandoUr, might declare that he did not believe one half of what was alleged, ahd then start a doubt whether an inquiry might not disclose very important matter. It appeared to him that they had be^n re hearsing the School for Scandal — that they had been performing asolemn^rcf. Had Malvolio really intrigued with his mistress ? or' had the other servants quarrelled with the steward,' and.^letermined to seek revenge ? He must again complain of the indistinct and indefinite nature of the charges — of the multiplii-' cation of facts, "to which it 'was impossible to give any answer, or to- establish any defence. He complained'also that it held out motives to inducie their lordi ships -to pass it, which could not operate to tlie prejudice of any cause tried before a j ury, or brought before their Lordships by impeachment. The offence ¦Would then be clearly described, and might receive a distinct answer ; each of their Lordships would, in -the latter case, be called upon to, decide a specific question on his honour. Suppose them to be satisfied that there was no evi dence of adultery, some of them might entertain such high, notions of female propriety as to condemn what others' might think innocent, and feel induced to; lend their sanction to this measure. Some might require conclusive proof of adultery'; others might be content with grounds of surmise. ¦ He knew, indeedj that many of them would not support the bill unless adultery was as clearly ascertained as in cases of ordinary di\'orce ; but he also apprehendedthat there Were many who might think' that the same evidence, from which a jury would presume the act in a civil action for criminsil conversation, would be sufficient in this instance. But, in cases of that nature, the proof Usually consisted of a variety of circumstances, as well as of direct evidence of a criminal intercourse. There was tlie wife's debauched mind, her estranged affections, and not seldom the de'sertion of her husband and family. But if the offence of adultery was to be proved at a criminal bar, the judge would require, as in all criminal prose cutions, either ocular proof^ or evidence tantamount fo it. How was he to gauge their Lordships' tastes, or to calculate the impression which such or such statements might make upon them? It was possible that familiarities might have occasionally taken place amidst the inconveniences of long journeys, such as a servant silling at the same table with her Majesty — an incident then ea.sily ac-> counted for, but which would havie been highly improper in theusual course of do mestic life Some of their Lordships might hold il improper to promote a servant; others might convictona differentground; nay, it was impossible thatnotwono- ble Lords might vote for this measure on the same ground. It might seem to many that, in default of legal evidence, considerations of expediency ought to be admitied. When great interests were at slake, and between high parties, these consideratidns were too often alloXved- to interpose their m* TBIAL Ot THE QtEEIf, t-^^L,.^^ fluehce. He had heard it said — it had indped but lately been the language of the press — that one of these parties must keep his place, and that the other ought therefore to be deposed; that the Queen, if she could not b«i punished as a culprit, might be sacrificed as a victim." True it was their Lordships could never be induced to convict by sentiments of this nature, nor did he wish to dwell longer on a subject so painful ; but he was anxious to remind their Lordships, that it was within the competence of the House of Commons to impeach in a case like the present. The ordinary rules of special plearding did not apply to it ; and, although no grand jury could find a bill of facts done at Milan, the House of Commons might impeach for whatever affected the dignity and honour of the crown, or the safety and interests of the state. This trial her Majesty had challenged; but slie regarded the bill as no trial — as a proceeding calculated only to bevVilder and betray, and as to the justicq, of which the public would have a right to entertain strong suspicions. For his own part, he disclaimed throwing any suspicions on their Lordships' justice ; he had the highest respect for the institutions of his country, and would submit to a grievance rather than asperse them ? but it would undoubtedly be said, that their Lordships had officiously volunteered on this occasion, and passed a bill of divorce without any of the necessary precautions. To these assertions it might be difficult, hereafter, to find an answer ; and he solemnly implored their Lordships tq stop ere it. was too late. They had heard from his learned friend (Mr. Brougham) a powerful and convincing argument on the evil tendency of bills inflicting penalties, and on their utter repugnance to every principle of justice. They exhibited the legislator and judge making at the same time the punishment and the crime. He would refer them again to tliose excel-> lent protests in Lord Strafi-ord's case which had been mentioned by hi-s learned friend, and from the principles set forth iu which they never could depart, without the commission of some injustice. It Appeared to him that the honour 6f the peerage was dearly bought by having an ancestor to be foiind in those majorities who passed the bill of attainder against Lord Straiford. What reason had been assigned why their Lordships .should now interfere with the House of Commons, or send down to theVn a bill of this description, there to be debated and discussed, possibly under the influence of instructions received from its constituents, and having no power , to examine witnesses upon oath ? If the charges emanated from that House, * The Morning Post said he did not care, provided het Majesty wiis removed out of the way, whether it was as a vrcTiM et a maktyk. Now mark this infamous Journal : in 1806, •this villainous paper c^ulisied, for limited service, inlo the faotion of Eldon, Perceval, and Co., a^jd, of course, it assisted its employers in defending the Princess of Wales Sgainst the calum nious charges of 1806. Its numerous, and often eloquent and -ivell argued articles in favour of her Majesty the Queen, was headed " The Infamous Calumny." Here follows an extract from one of these articles ;'wliich, when the reader has compared i<-ilh the vile and malignant libels on het Majesty, -now daily poured out in the same Journal, he may then say whether the Morning Post and its employers are not *' inbamous AP0sTA;rr.s," " The feelings of the Public, aliv.ays affectionate towards tlii^ amso/jie Princess, hare assumed,a particular animation since this extraordinary transaction has been divulged. Nothing can surpass the demonstrations of love towards her, and the expression of indignation against, < her accusers. Yesterday this was exemplified in the most striking' numiier^ A vast multitude coUeaed in -the front of the virtuous and highly esteemed Miircbioness of Townsuend,, ¦where her Royal ' Highness dined, and wailed for. several hours tillher Royal Highness re- tired, for the purpose of cheering licr Avith the most heartfelt expressions of applause aud at tachment; sucft/ce/tregs prove that the people of England will' always, afford to (!y'!ireii mjiu, cencea'suppott -on which it may rely with a perfect securiiy against the «'n/;uCTffe o/' nio/ice,' , hfiwtveafcnil;. agaimt the designs of cona'piBATOjis, ho-iVeveb wick:;d anu However yoWKKlv}."— Morning Post, July itb, 1806. ^^ TRIAL ^OF T'HE QUEEN." they might take the form of an impeachtnent,£ind then the questfoti would be trieiJ judicially, the evidence received on oath, and the decision pronounced upon the honour of their Lordships. Why were their Lordships to share their judicial power with the people at large, possibly with every petty corpora-^ tion that enjoyed the elective franchise. He had heard it lately said by one^' ©f the most distinguished members of the House ofCommons, that the House.' never went into any inquiry without disgracing itself before the inquiry was brought to a termination. Then let their Lordships look atthe situation of the' third branch of the legislature. The King had high powers, and was in all cases a mighty auxiliary. Was he, however, in this question to be viewed as a, fair umpire? Had he kept his peace in these proceedfngs? and if he had would • their Lordships pronounce sentence of divorce without a complaint' from one of the contracting parties to the marriage ?_ If, on the other hand,' the King had complained, if he had in fa.ct initiated this proceeding, and set all this machinery into tremendous operation, how could they, without' the greatest of all mockeries, call on him to give his assent to a measure of which he was himself the principal author? Although the subject might be treated in that house with a spirit of justice, it was not possible that doubts should not exist as to the principle of the measure. When he commenced bis address, his royal client had not entered the house, and therefore he now, in her presence, once more appealed to their Lordships to avert this public mischief — miscalled a trial'. Her Maje.sty was departing from no principje in making this appeal : she still cha|lenged a trial, but a fair trial ; she was not satisfied that her accusers should ,send sealed bags of papers to the most distinguished of her judges, or that the final' sentence should be pronounced by himself. There was no inconsistency in thus attempting to stifle a disr, gusting inquiry, and to stop the progress of such an attack on the honour of the first subject, and perhaps the future Sovereign, of these realms. Their Lordships' decision, he trusted, would not lend to impair the foundations of society, or to weaken the force of those moral examples by which they Were most effectually secured. Was this, in point of fact, a bill of divorce, or was it not ? The last four lines would suffice for this object ; and the sole object, he would venti^re to asseft, of this bill was to release ^ his Maje.sty from the sacred obligations of marriage. If it were a private or ordinary bill of divorce, the husband would be called upon to make answer, upon oath, to all questions relative to his own conduct — to all inquiries whether he had ever consented that his wife should live apart from him, or abroad at a distance from him. Divorce was regarded by, the law as a peculiar species of indulgence; and, in order to preserve -the sanctity of the marriage vow, it was never granted except where the complaining party ¦was himself free from blame. Let their Lordships, then, suppose the case of a young and accomplished, woman coming to these ^hores from a foreign country, with prospects of .splendour almost unparalleled; and on her arrival, instead of meeting, an" affectimate hu.iband, she found an alienated mind; that the solemnities of marriage did not prevent his being still surrowided hy mistresses; that the birth of a child, instead of .affording a pledge if mutual regard, became the signal of aggravated insult/ and., was', shortly foUotH/sd by her expulsion from the husband's roof* That, even then, spie^ were placed over her to report or to fabricate stories of her conduct. If, after » The state of the Prince's court on the Queen's first arrival in this country, the misttessei he kept, the batbatous insults and neglect Iitir Majesty experienced,-.-aH these tbinga must bS' reserved till the time of defence and recriminallonj, TRIAL OF THE QUKEST. 29 all these circumstances, an ex-parte inquiry took placo and terminated in a complete acquittal ; and, in consequence of tliat adquittal, she was restored to society and to the embraces of a father by wliom she was never deserted j if, subsequently, she had been induced to go abroad, and that the same machinations were renewed against her, in the hope that what had failed in England might succeed in Italy, and the charges, which had before been blown to atoms by argument and ridicule, might at length avail if not to convict, at least to blacken, to degrade, and to destroy : in a case like this, where the husband had thus shown himself indifferent to the honour and happiness of his wife — where he had abdicated all those duties which alone gave him the rights of a husband— would their Lordships listen for one moment to his case ? Surely not, and he would be obliged to retire from their bar with feelings which it was unnecesiiary to describe. If, then this matter were to proceed (which he prayed to God it might not-^and he so prayed, not more for the sake of his royal Client than for the sake of tlie Country and of the Sovereign himself) — but if it were to-, proceed, he now claimed the fullest and amplest opportunities of recrimination. If by incontinence, unkindness, or brutality, the wife was driven from het home, and was afterwards charged with adultery, to refuse all inquiry into the husband's conduct was evidently to allow him to take advantage of his own wrong. Recrimination appeared to him the most important right belonging to a consort. Unless, then, the rules of morality Were made, not for the high, but for the low, and unless laws were to be suspend ed only for the powerful, and never for the weak, such an .^example, he was- sure, would not be established. Bills of pains and penalties had but one justification — that of state necessity; and it was singular that'in many cases of their adoption this argument pointed another 'v\ay. In the case of^ Knight and Burton, in 1700, in which the offence was that of forging all instrument, the bill was passed in the House of Commons by acclamation : the House of Lords divided equally, but the casting vote of the Duke of Leeds decided the question' in favour of the bill. The offence was after wards tried at the Old Bailey, and a verdict of acquittal was foiind, he believed, upon the merits. But the case of Lord Strafl^ord was a much more unfortunate and signal instance of the dabger that attended all judicial proceedings carried on withoiit the sanction of judicial forms. The same holise which acquitted Lord Strafford on the impeachment acquiesced in the bill of attainder against hjm fot the same alleged oflfences. The languagfe in which history spoke of that nobleman's execution furnished a solemn warning to future ages of the necessity of adhering to strict rules in the administration of public justice. The case of Sir John Fenwick was, he acknowledged, a peculiar one : it was one attended with many criminal circumstances, and there Was at least the appearance of necessity to justify if. But, with regard (o the instances of Plunket, Kelly, and the Bishop of Rochester, he must dbserv'e that, until he examined their Lordships' journals, he was not aware that injustice had been carried to such an extent. The bill against Dr. Atterbury vvas passed on the written evidetice of a dead person ; and the bishop was not allowed to disprove the facts contained in the written .statement. Thus evidence not admissible in a court of crimi nal law was received, and all opportunity of rebutting it withheld. It seemed as if, when a state necessity was alleged lo ekist, there vtas no longer any question of guilt or innocence, and as if the sole object was to get rid of a certain party. Still the guiding precedents which had been pointed out for the measure under consideration affected to hold out the. 5 30 TRIAL OJr THE ftU^EN. Cull means of asserting and proving innocence. Now, in the first instance, let them consider whether there existed any shadow of public Necessity for this measure, and whether an apprehension might not rather be entertained that its adoption vvould ejndanger the public welfare. He did not wish to influerice their Lordships' njinds by extraneous considerations; he was satisfied they would act on the ^x'mciple,, Jiatjustitia, ruat coelwn; but at least be might be permitted to observe, that those considerations afforded no additional reason for their taking upop themselves" an unnecessary tasjc. It appeared to him that this proceeding might eventually lead to a disputed' succession. If his Majesty should again marry, and a child, the fruit of that marriage, be born, there might yet remain in moral and religious minds a doubt as to the validity of that marriage, and whether its offspring had a just title to the crown. Far was it from him, as a lawyer, to question the power of an act of parliament to regulate, the succession, but disputes, of that nature arose from feelings to which Parliament themselves were some. times obliged to yield. The title of Henry IV. was recognized by' as valid an act of parliament .as was ever passed, as the title of Henry 'VI. also was on more than one occasion. In the reign of Henry 'VIII. the issue of Queen Katherine was excluded, as was subsequently the daughter of Anne Boleyn. Four years after the death of the Queen Jane Seymour, and upon the King's marriage with Ann of Cleves, a new settlement was made. The King, on tliis occasion, did not divorce his wife till he had provided anoth»'r ; and he^ was afterwards twice married, and had nearly again changed the succession, '' In 1553 it v^s altered in favour of Lady Jane Grey, and the titles of Mary and Elizabeth were restored. To recur, then, to the possibility of a dis puted succession being the consequence of the present measure, he must now with infinite pain advert to certain proceedings \vhich took place in the year ,1809, relative to the conduct of an illustrious person, the heir-apparent to the throne. If scandalous or immoral conduct were to lead to the forfeiture of a tyown, and conflicting claims to arise as to the superior title of his Majesty's future child and the present heir, the latter might be told that his claim was gone, and that, to prove this, it was only neces-sary to send for the minutes of the House of Commons, by which it appeared that he was guilty of all that was imputed to the Queen, and of much more. So, with regard to the -other Royal Dukes of the same illustrious family, the same objection might -perhaps be addressed to them, if their conduct for six whole years wercto- be examined with a view of detecting scandalous freedoms or adulter-, , ous intercourse. In point of principle, this could not be regarded as a single measure. If a Queen Coiwort were to be hurled from her statjon into beggary and exile, the same principle might apply to a Queen Regnant : but there was, not one word in this bill which went -to deprive her Majesty of her right of succession to the throne. She was not, however, so remote in blood as to make that succession an impossible event. There was, at this moment, precisely the same difl^erence as existed at the, time, of the Revolution between WilliaiTr>, and George I. If this, then, were the case, how was it possible for them to avoid incurring the' greatest dangers bv this proceeding ? Were their Lordships prepared to say that improper and vicious cour.ses were a ground of exclusion from the throne ?' There was one question, one point which their Lordships could not have failed to observe, and that was, how many slanders in this case had been circulated against rank and authority. He should have thought that, instead. of using the authority under which this proceeding had ari.sen to give a sanc tion to those .danders, there would have been a dispOsitioj^ upon the part of their Lordships to put down all those caliironies — and more especially those TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 31 levelled against persons in authority— the dissemination of which had so long been the crying disgrace of the country. If a proceeding of this kind wai to be entertained in that House against the Queen, it was equally competent for it to entertain another one of the same description against Ihe heir-apparent, or the heir-presumptive ; and he vvould add, jtistly so; they ought to be em powered so to proceed in the other case. If, again, by the Introduclion of a measure like that before their Lordships, one peer could uncrown the Queen, another peer might uncrown the King ; and he would say further, that the public opinion, which, after all, must dispose of crowns, and sceptres, and kingdoms, would receive the same bias with equal facility. He did not say that, m the further progressof the present proceeding, no ju.stice would be done ; but he did affirm this — that its principle was one calculated to operate, and fatally, upon the monarchy of the country. He well knew that there were numbers who maintained that the Queen should have equal justice done to her with any other person, being a subject of the realm. It was contended by others, that were she a subject, she would have had such steps taken against her out of doors, as should in principle be the same as the pending measure : but he must say, that in regard to this particular proceeding, the case of the Queen was hot parallel lo that of any subject of the realm. (At this part of his speech the tone and manner of the honourable and learned gentleman seemed to in dicate much exhaustion ; and it was with some difficulty tlmt vje were enabled to coUect the remainder qf his observations.) This was a proceeding against the Queen alone ; but he was quite sure that for that reason their Lordships would not think her Majesty the less entitled to that protection which every honour able mind must be ready to award her. That which was true with respect to subjects at large, was not true as of princes of the blood royal : for the situation which they held in the country necessarily made them objects of greater envy and detraction than individuals in a difl^erent sphere ; and he did not know but that the example of the 6th of June last might be the cause of the creation and diffusion of a variety of slanders originating at St. Omer's, (as we understood the honourable and learned gentleman,) and other parts of France, affecting many individuals, but principally that royal personage to whom fifty thousand pounds per annum had been offered as the compensation for those rights which she demanded, and by whom that offet had been refused. If their Lordships would suppose for a moment that upon this un fortunate occasion, any degraded person had, by some secret means, found admission into the palace of the Queen, and it should appear that he had entered there with some treasonable intention of undermining her .stale and dignity, he vvould asktheir Lordships whether, even in thai case, any surer 6i more effectual means could have been resorted to for such a purpose ? He ws would perqeivii. in iti termination might do much positive harm. Here he must resneat that ha did protest ^nd object, in the most solemn manner, against biUs (»f pai«? apd penaltie? j sod ^ipwially against alijll of pain? and penal- TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 33 tias, in which the scene was laid in foreign states, at a great distance from this country, and carried through a term of six years ; and upon which the illustrious party had been denied a list of the witnesses against her — a privi lege which the usage of inferior courts sanctioned and established in every other case. In point of fact, the application to their Lordships originally was, that the substantial benefit might be given, and the inconvenience avoided ; and this great principle might be recognised, it was sub mitted, but modified in any manner that to their Lordships might appear most suitable and convenient. Now, he said, that before a grand jury the wit nesses publicly presented thLinselves to be sworn, and the indictmont was founded upon their evidence. No man was left in the dark about the charge brought against him, or deprived of the opportunity of knowing what was ' the character of those who appeared against him. He felt justified in saying, therefore, that so far from having received any thing like favour at their Lordships' hands, her Majesty had every reason to complain of the cour.se -which had been taken : those time.s, however, in which that complaint originated, were now passed. He again protested, in her Majesty's name, against all bills of pains and penalties ; but most solemnly against a bill of pains and penalties in a case which admitted of impeachment. He protested against their Lordships' dechning those duties which the constitution had im posed upon them, and undertaking one which it was not competent for them, and which they were never deemed likely to perform ; from which no good consequence was likely to result, and in the discharge of which they must subject tliemselves to the probability of receiving a check -from the other branch of the legislature. While he urged these considerations to their -Lordships, however, he must also strongly protest against any imputation that himself, or those with whom he was acting, were declining the combat upon which they had entered. They pleaded against the manner, but they did not shrink from the trial. On the part of her Majesty he might be allowed to observe, that it was painful for him to be compelled to allude lo unpleasant circumstances affecting royal and illustrious individuals, or lo revive the recollection of many past events ; but he trusted that he should stand acquitted to their Lordships for the faithful discharge of his duty to the best of his means and powers. He felt also that he owed to her Majesty some apology, because, in the course of his argument, he had been nece-^sarily, though hypothetically, led to suppose something like a possibility of guilt under circumstances which he was sure never could have existed, and from which her Majesty's high honour would have revolted. (In conclusion, the honourable and learned gentleman addressed their Lordships in these words.) " I beg to say, my Lords, that whatever may be enacted - whatever may be done, by the exertions of any individual, by the perversion of truth, or through the perjury of witnesses — whatever be the- consequences which may , follow, and whatever she may suffer — I will, for one, never withdraw from her those sentiments of dutiful homage which I owe to her rank, to hef situation, to her superior mind, to her great and royal heart ; nor, my Lords, will I ever pay to any one who may usurp her Majesty's station, that respect which belongs alone to her whom the laws of God and man have made the Consort of the King, and the Queen of these kingdoms." ' The Attorney-General then rose and said, the question to be consider ed was, whether they would entertain the grave and solemn, but disgusting cliarges prrferred against her Majesty, or, whether they were prepared to sajr, that, notwithstanding the proof to be adduced, there was something in this bill that it ought not to be followed up by the enactments contained in the 34; TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. preamble? - This was his view of the question before their Lordships, But, fee -how it had been argued by- his learned friends. They had argued th? question as if the preamble had not been proved, and yet they had indulged themselves in talking of spies, informers, perjured and suborned witnesses. When those witnesses had given their testimony, the time would come to speaK^ of their character and the nature of their testimony. This line ot proceeding was, in fact, nothing more nor less than tampering With their Lordsliips feelings, and, doubtless it must have made an impression upon th«r mmds. His learned friends had also placed another difficulty in his way ^'f >',^7 found fault with the framing of the preamble, and, not satisfied with ttiat, had gone through its whole history. They attacked the proceedings of the Secret Committee, and went on to sliow the disadvantages under which- her Majesty laboured, in consequence of not having her case brought before a grand jury. But their Lordships had decided that this was the only mode of proceeding ; they had decided that the crime with which her Majesty was accused, though if committed in England would be treason, could not be so construed, having been committed abroad and with a foreigner. They had, in fact, decided that her Majesty was not amenable to any of our courts of justice, and this was the only mode of proceeding which could be instituted. Their Lordships instituted this inquiry on the report of a Secret Committee-^ this, it was urged, deprived her Majesty of the benefit derived from a grand jury. But did the committee find her Majesty guilty of any one charge? They merely said, that from what been laid before them, they were of opinion, that there was serious ground of charge against her Majesty, affect ing the dignity of the crown, and they recommended the House to proceed to an inquiry. See, then, how the arguments of his learned friends were aw--; plied ; first, they found fairft with the preamble of the bill ; and, secondly,; they quarrelled with the measure itself, which, their Lordships, by their hayine read it the first time, had sanc^^ioned. It was urged that the Secret Committe? had reported upon unvouched documents- He had no means of knowing upon what statements the Secret Committee reported, nor did he know from whence his learned friends drevv their information ; but he was much mis taken if the Select Committee had not had the sworn testimony of witnesses in support of the statements laid before them. But whether they had or 'had not such testimony was not now the question ; their Lordships had decide^ lipon that report, and that decision could not now be called in question. The grounds alleged in the preamble of the present bill were of the same public nature and import as those staled in the bill against the Bishop of Ro-" -Chester. When the facts recited were proved in evidence, the great" question which their Lordships would have Wdecide, would be, whether such a substan tiation of the truth ol the facts should be followed by the enactment of the bill? It had been endeavoured by his learned friends lo raise an objection to the bill on the ground that the charges which it alleged against her Majesty had flow,- ed from slander and perjury. In the present stage of the proceeding, what right, he would ask, had they to argue upon such a gratuitous and unpro voked assumption ? Where were the proofs to justify it ? Their Lordship* knew iipthing of them— they could not know any thing of them ; and tor what purpose such a line of observation was introduced, he would leave to their Lordships to decide. In the same spirit, it was objected by his learned friend, that the present bill originated in a committee of that House; where no decisive opinion had been formed. He could not see the least strength in such an objection. The decisive opinion of their Lordships had yet to be formed, ft would be doing a great injustice to her Majesty had their Lord- TRIAL OP THE QUEEN. 35 ships, in that previous part of the proceeding, ventured to pron6imco a deci sive opinion ; it would then be imputed to them that they had forestalled and prejudged the question. Their Lordships had wisely abstained from such a course. All that they had done was to express their opinion that there exist ed grounds for a serious charge against her Majesty. Throughout the whole of the argument of his learned friends, that had been assumed, which, at least, was extremely doubtful, nam»ly, that in proceeding against her Majes ty an impeachment could have been founded. The whole of the argument against proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, rested oh the ground of tlieir Lordships acting, in that case, in their legislative, and not in their judicial capacity. When, therefore, his learned friends deprecated such a course, and contended for an impeachment, they were bound to have shown that in the present case an impeachment could have been maintained. That proof they had declined ; and their Lordships, he trusted, would agree with him, that the wisest course which could have been pursued was the one which was the leaiit subject to doubt and uncertainty. Besides, he would confidently say, that, notwithstanding all those airs of triumph with which those objec tions, were introduced, notwithstanding all the inflammatory language which accompanied their statement, that a very different character would have been given to the measure of proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties, had not that been the very measure which in the present case had been adopted. It was adopted because it adverted to certain charges against her Majesty, ¦which, though of the gravest import, were not a violation of any law, while the best authorities, supported the doctrine that an impeachment could not be maintained but for a breach of the law. Sure, then, he was, that, notwith standing all the challenges now so heroically thrown out, notwithstanding all those allusions to the morality of the country, and all those various topics so liberally bneught into view, had impeachment been the proceeding adopted, the very same objectors would have deprecated it, and have said, that the proceed ing in the case of an adultery should have been by Bill, and not by Impeach ment, because, by the adoption of the latter course, the accused party was deprived of the power of recrimination. They complained of the proceeding by Bill, because they now were shut out from recrimination, and, strange to say, regret that the impeachment was not adopted— a course of proceeding which no lawyer would venture to assert allowed the accused lo recriminate. All this contradiction had its purposes ; it was to terrify and to alarm, and to withdraw the minds of their Lordships from the real question on which they had to decide. His learned friends had, il was lo be recollected, taken this course, not in the exercise of a duty compulsive with them, but,- acting un der an indulgence very rarely allowed by that House, so rarely, indeed, that the divorce case .of the Duke of Norfolk was the only one to be found' where thecounsel of the accused wereallowed to interfere before the evidence was produced. It was not, then, too much to expect that those sweeping charges should have been deferred until the character of the evidence to be produced was ascerlained ; before the charge of corruption was thrown out against witnesses to be examined, surely his learned friends should wait until enabled to sustain such imputations by proof. His learned friends ma'ji- pre judge, they may prejudice, tiiey may assail the characters of the most emi nent and illustrious in rank and station ; they may rake from the shades of oblivion all those prejudices or failings over which the healing spirit of time and more correct feeling had, in consideration of bis many virtues, thrown a veil ; they may select the moment when an iilustrioui inchvidual, (the Duke of York, we presume,) was next in succession to the throne, when the remains $6 TRIAL Ot THE QVttS. of his illustrious partner have just been "consigned 16 the grave, t6 wound hJj feelings, and revive recollections Which a better fueling had never disturbed; all these things they may do with impunity,— to bim it was only to'state the facts which he should call Upon evidence to sustain. They" may' declaims on the bribes by which that evidence Was obtained, and animadvert on the na ture of the motives which they presunved to operate on the minds of some of their Lordships. All that remained for him was to cotljtire their Lordships, and he knew he did so Hot in vain, to- dismiss all such inapplicable statements from thetf minds, and to apply themselves to the great ahd rmportaat question on which, in fact, they were Called in their judicial character 49^ pronounce. The Solicitnr-General foWowed on the same side. It was asked, said % learned gentleman, as this was a Bill of Fain and Penalties enacting divorce,' ¦who was the complaining parly? Ill ordinary cases, said they, bills of divorce are not passed unless the "husband appears and gives his coft.seht to the rescinding of the matrimonial contract. True it was that tne King K«i not here the complaining par^ : it did liot suit his high character and station'to come before this court as the complaining party; but, knowing the facts of the case, he pursued the cour.'se befitting his dignified and prirteely cdpacHy; he ordered the papers to be laid before the Parliament, that it might deal with the case as to its wisdom might seem meet. Thus he became a consentmg; though not a complaining, party. Mr. Brougham then rose to reply. The learned Counsel ofi the other side had defended the bill in question, on the ground that il was the ortly Way by which the case of his illustrious Client could be reached. The mode of impeachment was rejected, because no instance of a proceeding of that kind could be quoted where the mailer in question was not cognizable by any known law. He however maintained the contrary ; and to prove the trutll of his position, cited several cases from Ih lyons, in the reign of Edwaftl III. down to that of Warren Hastings, as instances where impeachments had taken place where no infringement of any known law had occurred. This was quite sufficient for bis argument against the present measiure. He should now lurn to another point. It seemed, according to his learned friertd', thai the King made no complaint: and yet the bill in question was a Divorce Bill. He vvould ask his learned friends, whether, from the beginning of time to the present day — he put the case ol Henry VIII. out of the question — they hsd ever heard of a bill legislating away the rights of a wife, and disso'l*ifig i marriage, without any application on the part of the husband? Taken id this point of view, the'.e proceedings seemed lo place his Majesty in a -v&j singular situation. He does not complain, but he sends down a bag of pap'efS ' for the corisideralion of the House ; and, in doing so, it is- said that he KsJ pledged himself to abide by the seintence of divorce, if such sentence shofild he pussed. Now he must say thai this course looked very like that of a petsoii complaining. Butrif his Majesty was the complainer, the other party would be entitled to all the rights enjoyed by defendants in similar cases. Bat h appeared to be thought that he (Mr. Broiigliam) and his colleagues had been guilty of great injustice to. the cliims of a certain re^ecteWe' class of the coto- munity, wiiom he should describe as -witnesses. This was a charge he cfluM not admit. For his own part, he could not think himself justified in whimper ing a single syllable to the disadvantage of this worthy order of persinl When he thought of them, his idea of them was too high to allow hi* f6 look upon them with any other eyes than those of respect. His impression was, that they must be persons- of exalted station, above the ordinary raH'k's ot TRIAJU OF THE QUKEN. 37 lifis, or at least looking in their exterior like ihoso persons with whom their Lordships were accustomed to associate, rhis respectable exLernal appear ance they had, he doubled not propri > maric. They must be seized in fee simple of those decent habiliments in which it wciild be fitting for Ihein to appear before their Lordships ; and those, too, purchased out of tluir own ample revenues, f le supposed they nni-;! be persons who could regale them selves at their ott-H expense — who could live in separate apartments, and could fare sumptuously every day. They must not, he \vas sure, be persons who were called together by the ringing of a bell, or the healing of a drum, to a common meal provided at the expense of others. At least he was certain that they must have full liberty and locomotion, and might be e.\ peeled to be met by their Lordships inthe corners of the streets ; and that when they went abroad, no individuals should be seen altending them, or watching their motions, but lacgueys de place. Wherever they were seen, he was sure they would be respected; they must be known to Europe, and if less known in this country, it was our misfortune, not theirs. He might Surely anticipate that they would appear before their Lordships decently attired, at their own charge, and deliver their testimony — lie could not say in proper English, but in their own native language — with dignity and propriety. 1Such was the description of testimony, he had to expect in support of the preamble and clauses of the Bill. To meet a cloud of such witnesses was enough to appal any man. But, besides these, there would be, he was equally confident, a number of home-bred witnesses, of equal respecttbility. They must be officers nf distinction in the army or nary, or ladies and gentle men who had enjoyed the society or been about the person of his illustrious Client. These persons, being well known in this country, would be regarded as even more worthy of credit by their Lordships than the former. In this situation, what would become of him and his learned colleague, if their Lord ships should see no weight in their arguments against the principle of the bill, and should determine to receive this overwhelming evidence ? — The learned Counsel concluded by saying, he .should deeply feel the pain of being led into any thing like recrimination ; but, with every regret al being compelled to take that course, his feelings would at least be alleviated by the considera tion that he acted in the discharge of h\s professional duty. The eloquent speech of Mr. Brougham concluded the argument on the mode of proceeding by a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Such was the effect produced by the eloquence of her Majesty's Counsel — and so clear their reasoning' — that Lord Grey wished for time lo deliberate. Before the House adjourned Lord King made a motion lo the effect, that it was not necessary to the public safety or security of Government that this bill should pass into a law. The debate on his Lordship's motion vvas postponed till to-morrow morning. Her Majesty this day quitted the House towards the close of Mr. Denman's learned and eloquent argument, and with Lady Hamilton retired lo the private apartments appropriated to her use. Her Majesty was however apprized of all that occurred during her absence by one of her chamberlains. She again returned, when Mr. Brougham began his reply, and continued till he co,ncluded. On her Majesty's return to Brandenburgh -house; she was greatly exhausted. The occurrences of the week, although in the highest degree gratifying, were still calculated to produce on her mind the most over whelming sensations. She declared that she was incapable of expressing the delight which she experienced in witnessing the enthusiastic affection of her subjects, and only prayed that an opportunity might be afforded her of evincing the true sentiments of her heart. Of her eloquent advocates, Messrs. 6 38 TB^AL OF THE QUEEN. Brougham and Denman, her Majesty spoke in a strain of grateful exultation, and" said, that while her interests werejn such hands, it was impossible that her cause could be otherwise than triumphant. THIRD DAY.— Saturday, August 19- This morning Lord King made his promised motion to iquash entirely the infamous proceeding against her Majesty. His motion was rejected by a large majority. The minority consisted of sixty-five peers; but what a minority ! In property — in family,— in personal character, — in the influence of its members over society at large, — when has §uch a minority voted within the walls of parlianrent ? Ten Dukes, with a Prince of the Blood Royal, hus band to the King's favourite sister, at their head I Ten Dukes, among whom are the chiefs of the illustrious houses of Russell, Cavendish, Bentinck, Sey mour, Hamilton, Beauclerc, and Fitzgerald! Among the Earls of this memo rable minority it were easy to name half a dozen, any one of whom has a larger slake in the country than all the King's- fourteen ministers p;it toge ther. These great leaders of the English aristocracy surely are no place-' hunters ; they can have no interest to serve by voting against the Bill of Pains and Penalties, further than a love of justice, a deep anxiety for the preser vation of the public peace and morals, shaken so greatly and endangered by this monstrous Bill. The following are the names of the non-contents against calling in counsel to proceed with the Bill : Duke of Glocester, Somerset,Grafton, St. Albans, Bedford, Devonshire, Portland, Hamilton, Argyll, Leinster, Marq. Lansdowne, Downshire, Earl of Derby, Suffolk, Denbigh, Thanet, Essex, Albemarle, , Jersey, Oxford,Cowper, Stanhope, After the division the Attorney-General, Earl Fitzwilliam, Hardwicke, Darlington, Ilchester, Waldegrave, Grosvenor, Fortescue, Carnarvon, Rosslyn,Romney, Grey, Minto, Breadalbane, Rosebery, Besborough, Darnley, Blesinton, 'Vise. Bolingbroke, Torringlon, Hood, Anson, Duncan, 'Vise. Lord Clifden, Downe, Dacre, Say, and Sele, King, Sondes,Holland, Ducie, Hawke,, Foley, Sherborne, , Kenyoh, Auckljind, Dundas,Yarborough, Calthorpe, Gwydir,Alvanley, Erskine,Prudhoe, Belhaven. on Lord King's mofioni counsel were called in ; and and the counsel for the Crown, on one side, and Mr. Brougham, and the counsel for the Queen, on the other, appeared at the bar. , The Lord Chancellor, — Mr. Attorney-General, you will proceed to open your case. . ' ¦ TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 39 The silence which at this moment pervaded the House, was rendered more impressive by loud peals of thuneler that burst in rapid succession over the building. ' > CHARGES AGAINST THE QUEEN. The Attorney-General.— My Lords, 1 now attend at your bar to fulfil the duty which you have demanded, of staling lo your Lordships the circum stances which are to be adduced in evidence in support of the charges which are contained in the preamble of the bill now under your lordships' conside ration. A duly, my Lords, more painful or more anxious, 1 believe was never imposed ufion any individual to accomplish. ('C/'H'i o/ Speak up.) My Lords, I am sure I shall receive your Lordships' indulgence if, under the weight of this most important duty, I feel that %vhich I cannot express. (Cries of Louder,.) My Lords,^ I was staling to your Lordships, that the duly which I now have to perform is one of the most painful and anxious which was ever cast upon any individual. I have, my Lords, to state lo your Lordships the circumstances which are to be adduced in evidence to your Lordships in sup port of those serious and heavy charges which are made in the preamble of the bill, which has already been so much the subject of discussion — charges which, in the language of the preamble, not only reflect the greatest scandal and disgrace upon the individual against whom they are made, but also reflect the greatest disgrace upon the country itself. The highest individual, as a subject, in the country, is charged with one of the most serious offences, both against.the laws of God and man : it is that of an adulterous intercourse— an adulterous intercourse carried on under circumstances of the greatest aggrava tion. My Lords, upon the nature of this charge, or upon the imponance of this investigation, it is quite unnecessary for me lo enlarge. Your Lordships, and every individual in the country, are fully capable of estimating the.se topics in their proper light. The only consolation, my Lords, which I derive under the discharge of the duly which 1 have now to fulfil, is, that it calls not upon me to address myself to your Lordships' passions or feelings; and that I shall best discharge it according lo your Lordships' command by abstaining from any observation which might lend lo aggravate the charge made against so illustrious a person. I shall confine myself, in this stage of the proceeding, to a clear, simple, but full recital of the facts which are to be alleged in evidence. My Lords, we are now arrived at that period of these proceedings in which silence can no longer be preserved. It is now necessary to state the charges in the fullest extent in which they can be laid before your Lordships and the public ; and if, in the recital of the circumstances which I have to detail, I shall be under the painful necessity of bringing before your Lordships scenes which much disgust every well-regulated mind — transactions which must offend the feelings of every honourable and virtuous person, lam sure your^ Lordships will think that upon this occasion I ought to hold no reserve ; at the same time, taking care to state nothing which in my conscience I do not believe I shall be able to substantiate by proof. I shall now, my Lords, with out further preface, state to your Lordships the painful narrative of those facts and circumstances -which are to be adduced in proof before you. My Lords, undoubtedly the recital must involve a considerable space of time, and apply to facts which occurred in various places, in which her Majesty chanced lo be during her residence abroad. I'shall, therefore, commence my .statement at that period when her Majesty quilted this country, and proceed, as well as I can, to detail the various facfs and circumstances which took place ffom that period almost to the time I now have the honour of addressing your Lord- 40 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ships. It was well known to their Lordships and the country, (continued' the learned gent.) that, in the year 1814, her Majesty, for reasons Operating upon her own mind, and not by compulsion,* as has been insinuated by his learned brothers, thought fit to withdraw herself from this country to a foreign l^nd. Mr. Brougham, in an under lone of voice, made some explanatory ob servation. The Attorney-General— I beg pardon Ccries of Order, order) ; but if I am to be interrupted, it will be impossible for me to do justice to the task which your Lordships have cast upon me. When remarks are offered to my ear; my attention is , necessarily distracted by them ; and on an occasion So im portant as the present, with such public expectation attending the result of the duty 1 have to perform, and with a consciousness of my own inability to do justice to .so arduous a task, I should be devoid of all feeling if I were insensible to the difficulty of my situation. I trust I. shall therefore receive that'indulgence from your Lordships which even a person of stronger nerves would find it necessary lo claim. Mr. Brougham. — J did not mean to interrupt the learned person. (Cries of Order, order.) Mr. Brougham.— My Lords, in all courts. — (Order, order.) Mr. Brougham.— in every court.-^(Order, order ; go on, go on.) Mr. Brougham was reluctlantly silent. The Attorney-General— My Lords, it was perhaps more my fault than that of my learned friend, in alluding to what had passed. I will hot, therefore, take up any further time' on this subject. The learned gentleman then Vvenl. on to slate, that, in 1814 her Majesty withdrew herself from this country; fot the purpose of travelling upon the continent, or visiting other countries. She went in the first instance to Brunswick, and from thence, after a short stay, she went to Italy, and arrived at Milan on the 9th of October, 1814. Het Majesty, when she quitted this country, quitted it with persons about her who were precisely such persons as should be about an individual of her exalted rank. She was accompanied by individuals connected with distinguished families in this kingdom. Among these were Lady Charlotte Lindsay and Lady Elizabeth Forbes, who Were her maids of honour ; Mr. St. Leger, Who was her chamberlain, and Sir William Gell and the Hon. Keppel Craven, who, I believe, were attached to her in a similar character. She was also accompanied by Captain Este, as her equerry, and Dr. Holland, as her phy sician, besides other persons whotji it is unnecessary to enumerate. With this "Suite her Majesty arrived at Milan; It was her intention to proceed to other parts of Italy, and to visit-Naples. She remained at Milan for the space of three weeks, and during that period a person was received into her service, whose name occurred in the preamble of this bill, and whose name will fre quently occur in the course of these proceedings — a person of the name of Bergami, zuho was received jby her as a courier, or footman, or valet de place.f * Truly not absolute compulsion ; she -n-as not forced out under an order from the Alien- Oflice, nor banished by act of Parliament ; but •while she rernaiBed she was the victim of incessant insult and provocation. She had been excluded from the Queen's drawing-room, she was shunned hke a pestilence by all persons of her own rank, — and even lier daughter, the lamented Princess Charlotte, was only allowed to visit her under certain regulations. Isit surprising that she should wish lo retire from a country where she suffered such gross injustice; where, after she had been solemnly acquitted of every charge, she was still persecuted like a criminal. But even abroad the^alice of her enemies accotnpsnied her like sohie molignant daemoa. ^ t Now all that is here said about the low charqxksr of M. Bergami is easily put down by a plain statement of facts. It ts rabst true that this gentleman was originally tttgaged 'by her TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 41 This person, at the time he entered into her Majesty's service, was in want of employment; but he had been in the service of General Pino, and being re commended to her Majesty, though it did not appear how he was recom mended, he wits received into her suite in the character and capacity which he had staled. He needed hardly remark lo their Lordships upon the distance which inteiposed between her Majesty and her courier,, or obser\ e that, from the natural course of things, the communication between her Majesty and this man must have been most unfrequent ; and that no familiar intercourse, at least during an early stage of his service, could lake place under ordinary cir cumstances. It was about fourteen or fifteen days previous to her Majesty's departure from Milan that Bergami entered into her service. Her Majesty, on quitting Milan, proceeded to Rome, and from thence ^hc went lo Naples, where she arrived on the 8th of November, 1814. This person had not been in her Majesty's service more than three weeks. He begged fo call their Lordships' attention to this circumstance, because they would find how mate rial it became when they listened to the facts which presently it would be his melancholy duty to relate. He should have stated, that, besides the persons whom he mentioned as accompanying her Majesty from this country, there was a lad whose name was perhaps familiar to their Lordships — he meant William Austin. Up to the time of her Majesty's arrival at Naples, this lad Was the object of her peculiar attention, and, in fact, being a boy of only six Majesty, at Milan, in an humble capacity. At the time when he was recommended to her Majesty's notice, and when she was forming ber establishmcnr, with a view to Ihe extensile tour she had in contemplation, M. BinTotoiaco Beiigami held the situation of vabinet hoarier, an officer entrusted with despatches of great importance, and usually a person en titled to particular confidence. He was a man who was acquainted with diiferent languages, accustomed to travel, and deemed by those with -whom be was acquainted to possess extensive information; added to this he was of a respectable family, which, by unforeseen and unfortu- hate circumstances, had been reduced from a state of opulence to a situation of comparative poverty. The honourable marriages of M. Beugami's three sisters prove, at least, that he was not of the '' low station" which has been averred. The fir.st was married to Count Oldi; the second to JVI. Severgrhii, of an ancient family at Cremona ; and the third to M. Martini de Lodi, brother of the Ex-Secretary General of the Captaincy of Padua,- when commanded by his Excellency the Baron de Goez. M. Behgami, the eldest son, soaring beyond hig Wd fortunfe, and recdllecting Ihe past honourable condition of his family, embriiced a mili tary life, and was attached to the etat-major of the troopsi commanded by his Excellency the General Count Pino, in the campaign of 181?, 1313, and 1814, as aitesteil by the foUow ing, declaration of Generation of General Maior QAtiMBERTi : — " I declare that iVI. le Baron Bartolomeo Bergami, of Cremona, Knight of Malta, has served in the etat-major of the troops, commanded by his Excellency Count Pino, Lleutenant-General, to whom I was the "chief of the etat-major, in the late campaigns of 181S, 1813, 1314. (Signed) " Le General-Major GAUMBERTI." " Dated Milan, Nov. 1, 1816." " Seen and certified by me, Lieut-General Count PliSO." Her Majesty soon discovered in M. Bergami an intelligence above the situation in which he was placed, and as the reward of bis faithful services, she gradually raised him to the rank of brt equerry, and from thence to that of her chamberlain. She was acquiiirrted with '(h* lofsfortunes of his family, and long experience increased fur him her esteem. She became particularly interested in his favour, procured for him a Baioiiy in Sicily, dccocated him with several Orders of Knighthood, and in fact did everything in her power to mark her sense of the repeated proofs which he had afforded of his atiachinent to her person and iiitercsis duriftjf her long and fatiguing tour. On her return to Italy, too, she took two of his brorhersn'! , 'well as bis sister into ber service. M. Louis Bergami presided over her hoiischolB, Mr. Sicard. having returned to England; and M. Volotti Bergami, formerly under Prctec'i atOre- (ndna, was the comptroller of her disbursemenls. Such appears to be the real statejjf *he facts vrith respect to M. Bergami; and is there any thing in her Majesty'* conduct inconsistent wilh almost every day's occurrence's? All she has done has heeh to beltbw just nswiitrds oh an honourable and faithful servant. ¦' .,' ¦ 42 TRIAL OF THE aUEEN. or seven years of age, was in the habit of sleeping in a bed in the same room with her Majesty. The arrangement of her Majesty's own sleeping apart ment devolved upon one servant, -vyhose peculiar duty itwas to attend to that branch of her domestic eomfort. On the arrival of her Majesty's suite at Naples, it was so arranged that her Majesty's sleeping-room was at an oppo site side of the house to that of her menial domestics, among whonj was her courier. On the first night of her Majesty's arrival at Naples, (the 8th Nov.) to which he had called their Lordships'. attention, this arrangement was conti nued. Bergami slept in that part of the house which had been pr'epared for the domestics, and young Austin slept in her Majesty's apartment. But on the following morning, November the 9th, the servants of the establish. ment learned with some surprise, because no reason appeared to them for the change, that Bergami was no longer to sleep in that part of the house where he had slept the night preceding ; but that it was her Majesty's pleasure that he should sleep in a room from which there was a free communication with that of her Majesty, by means of a corridor or passage. He need not state, ¦that such a circumstance was calculated lo excite the surprise of those who were about her Majesty's person ; and that surprise was increased when they learnt from her Maje.sty that she.no longer wished 'William Austin to continue to sleep in her room. For this she assigned a reason, which, if it was her only motive, was very proper : she said that he had now arrived at aii age when, it was no longer becoming that he should sleep in her apartment ; and, a separate, room was prepared for his use. He had already stated that, from the situation assigned to Bergami, a free communication was open between his chamber! and that of her Majesty J and (he believed) he should be able to satisfy their Lordships that on the evening of the 9th of November that intercourse, which is charged between her Majesty and Bergami by the present bill, commenced, and that it was continued from that time till he quitted her service. Upon the evening of the 9lh of November her Majesty went to the Opera at Naples, but it was observed that she returned home at a very early hour. The person' who wailed upon her, on»her return, was the maid-servant whose duty it was particularly to attend to her bed-room. She was struck with the manner of tlie Princess, and with the agitation which she manifested. She hastened to her apartment, and gave strict orders that William Austin should not be ad mitted to her room that evening. She was ther> observed to go from her own room ^towards that assigned to Bergami. She very soon dismissed her female attendant, telling her' that she had no further occasion for her services. The female servant retired ; but not without those suspicions which the circum stances he had mentioned were calculated to excite in the mind of any indivi dual. She knew, at the time, that Bergami was in his bed-room, for this was the first iiight of his having taken advantage of the arrangement which had been previously made. It was quite new, on the part of the Princess, to dis miss her attendants so abruptly ; and when her conduct and demeanor were considered, suspicions arose which it was impossible to exclude. But if sus picions were excited then, how were they confirmed on the following morn ing I If I prove (said the Attorney-General) by evidence at your Lordships' bar what I am now going to state, I submit that there will then be before your Lordships evidence on which no jury would hesitate to decide that adultery had that night been committed' between this exalted person and her menial servant ; for, upon the follow'ing morning, on observing the state of her room, it was evident that her Majesty had not slept in her own bed that night. Her bed remained in the same state as on the preceding evening, while the bed of the other person had, to those who saw it, clear and decisive inarks of two TRiAL OF THfe QUEEN. 43 persons having slept in it. On the following morning her Majesty did not make her usual signal on rising, but remained in the apartments with Bergami until a late hour. As she had recently airived at Naples, some persons of dis tinction were naturally led to pay their respects lo her: several called that morning, but she was accessible to none. He (the Attorney-General) had already mentioned the "state of the beds, and upon these facts no man could well hesitate as to the conclusion at which he must arrive. But, taking into account the various attendant circum.stances, their Lordships' could not doubt that this was the commencement of that most scandalous, most degrading, and most licentious intercourse, which would be found to continue and increase. The natural eflect of it was to lessen the comparative distance between the parties, and which ought to exist between persons of royal rank and menial servants. 'When once a Princess thus debased herself, il occasioned in the low individual, the object of her passion, a degree of assumption and freedom to which otherwise he would have made no pretensions. Such had been the result here : it was observed that Bergami became more haughty'; that he took upon himself an air of greater importance, which grew as the intercourse proceeded. A few days after the time to which he had now called the atten tion of dieir Lord.ships' her Majesty gave a masqued-ball, or an entertainment of that kind, to the person at that time filling the Neapolitan throne,' and at a house belonging to the King of Naples. On this occasion her Majesty, first took the character of a Neapolitan peasant, but after a time returned to the house at which she had attired herself (not that where she resided), and with drew to a room for the purpose of changing her dress. To the surprise of her' attendants, instead of being accompanied for this purpose by the females who usually assisted her, the courier Bergami was sent for to withdraw with the Queen, to assist her in changing her dress. It seemed also to have been the in tention of her -Majesty to appear in another character — that of the Genius nf History; and she was to be accompanied by a gentleman. He (the Attorney- General) was instructed to state, that the dress she wore upon this occasion (or rather the want of it, in part) was extremely indecent and disgusting : but the material fact was this — that that change of dress took place in the presence, and with the assistance of the courier Bergami, and no other person. Another character that she assumed was that of a Turkish peasant : and Ihis menial Ber gami, in a corresponding dress, actually accompanied the Queen, then Prin cess of Wales, to this entertainment. It appeared, however, that Bergami did not remain long at this ball. He returned home, apparently dissatisfied with something that had occurred. What that was he did not know. Her Majesty, however, came home soon after, and endeavoured to prevail on him to go back to the ball. She urged him strongly ; but he declined going. She tlien went back by herself ; but, after remaining only a short time, her Majesty, much disappointed, returned to her house, the apartments of which had been arranged as he had already described. It was observed by thos« who at tended on her, that she and Bergami always rose at the same time in the morning, and it would also be proved that her Majesty was in the habit of breakfasting with this courier in a particular apartment, completely secluded from all the rest of the family. Their LOrdships would recollect that this man while thus honoured was still a courier, was still in the same menial situation in which he had been when taken into her Majesty's service,*' There was a terrace in * Pshaw, Mr. Attorney-General, how you confute yourself Is it likely the Queen would have suffered Bergami to remain in the low situation you describe, had her Majesty formed the intimacy with him you have just infened from the alleged state of the beds, &c. The statement refutes ftself. 44 TRIAL OF THE Q0EEN. front ofithpi house m which her Majesty was often seen walking aecotjipanied by this^an, walking bccasionally arm in arm with her courier. Diiring her Majestya staj( at Naples this person received an injury by a kick from a!Aorse,;aBd this w;as: one of the circumstances which teni^ed to show the influ ence "he had acquired o.ver his royal mistress. He had obtained such an ascen. d«8cy, that he had it ih bis power to introduce into the house a servant to. wait upon himself. Thisman* slept in a room close to that allotted to Bergami, and during ihe time that he was in attendance he observed her Majesty two or three, different times advancing, after all the other domestics were retired to rest,, with great care and caution, from her Own apartment to Bergami'?, room. Into that room she entered, and each time remained in it for a coq.; sideraWe period; and he had further to state, that on one occasion after she- had entered a sound was heard, .which convinced the person whp observed this proceeding, that her Majesty and Befgami were kissing each other.' (Here something, which we did not hear, was .said within the bar.) He vi/a's' aware of the reluctance with which their Lordships must listen to these dis gusting details ; they were such, he was sensible, as must excite disgust in a certain measure even towards the person stating them, but that consideration^ would not prevent him from performing his duty. The painful duty of stating them was cast upon him, and the no less painful duty of hearing and consider-] ing them was cast upon their Lordships. He was bound'tb describe the cir cumstances which formed the case, but he was sure their Lordships would not censure him for stating in the way he was doing those facts which it wa? necessary be should lay before them. Proceeding, then, with his narrativfe, he had tO: observe that her Majesty remained in Naples from November-to March, and that it would be proved that durir.g the whole of that period the kind of intimacy he had described as existing betv^6en her Majesty anil Bergami continued to increase. It certainly was not his wish to found any airgument. on, statements which rested merely on public rumour, but he could n^t help alluding to one remarkable circumstance, and leaving it, connectea with the others, for their Lordships' consideration. It was certainly Very singular, that on leaving Naples her Majesty was abandoned by the greater part of her English suite. Mr. Sti Leger, it was true, had quitted her be fore ; he left her at Brunswick, and^ he therefore admitted that no inference could' be. drawn from his case. But on her Majesty's departure from Naples, Lady Charlotte Lindsay and Lady Elizabeth Forbes were left behind. No, he begged pardon. Lady C. Lindsay did not leave the Queen until they vvere at Leghorn, in March, 1815. At Naples, however. Lady E. Forbes, Sir W. Gell, the Hoq. Mr. Craven, and Captain Este certainly did separate from her. Tfais ^ the seven persons who composed her Majesty's suite when she kfl,, this country no less than four left her in Naples.-]- There might be, and perhaps' * The fellow here alluded to is Theodore Majochi. lie is one of .the Queen's disciirdeil' seivanta, and a principal agent in the plot against her honour. We learn ftom this statement that it was the fiimdship of M. Bergami that first introduced this ungrateful wretch into tlie Queen's s'cTvice. t A great stress is laid on her Majesty being deserted by her English suite ; a ciicumstasoe which is very satisfactorily explained. When the Queen left England, in August, 181A Lady Charlotte Lindsay arid Lady Elizabeth Forbes were her maids of honour, Mr, St, L«lger was her chamberlain ; Sir William , Gell and the Hon. Keppel Craven were also her chamberlains.; hec- «fuer*y was Captain Este; her physician, fjr. Holland ; her stewajd, Mr. Sicatd. (still holding, that situation); her messenger, Mr. Hiei'onimus, a German, (stijl, imbet Mftje»,ly'» service.) To these were added a few -domestics, which constituted the wholf of. her Majesty's. suite. Mr. St Leger, from ill health, did not accompaity her Majesty far ther than Brunswick, Lady Charlotte Lindsay repaired to the Spa to join her sister, tady TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 45 would be, in another part of the proceedings, assigned on the part of these persons, reasons for this act which had nothing to do wilh the conduct of the Queen ; but he could not help thinking it extremely singular thai she should at this particular time have lost so large a portion of the suite that accompanied her on her departure from England, He could not help supposing that, though these persons might be unacquainted wilh the intimacy between Bergami and the Queen, some rumours on the subject had reached them. In the mean time, until il .should be explained how these persons happened to leave her Majejity thus suddenly, and all about the same period, he could not avoid regarding the separation as a most singular circumstance. Whether their Lordships would, ffom this occurrence, think there was reason lo believe that these persons were aware of the degrading intercourse which subsisted be tween the Queen and Bergami, he could not tell ; but, as he had said, he thought that the inference to tie drawn from it was, that they probably had heard something of the disgusting familiarities which had taken place ; but whether that was so or not, the fact was, that they had left her Majesty in the way he had described During her Majesty's residence at Naples another circumstance took place to which it was his duty to call their Lordships' at tention. A masquerade was held at a theatre called, he believed, the Theatre of St. Charles. To this entertainment her Majesty chose lo go in a very ex traordinary manner, accompanied, not by Lady Charlotte Lindsay or Lady Elizabeth Forbes, or even by any of the gentlemen of ber suite, but by the courier Bergami and a femme de chambre of the name of Dumont. The dres.ses chosen by her Majesty for herself and her companions to appear on this occasion were, as he was instrticted, of a description so indecent as to attract the attention of the whole company, and to call forth marks of general disapprobation. Indeed, so strong was the disapprobation, that her Majesty, finding she was recognized, was under the necessity of withdrawing with her companions from, the entertainment, and returning home. There was also something extraordinary in the manner in which she was conveyed lo this theatre. How did she go ? Not publicly, in her own carnage, attended by her suite ; not from the public door of her residence, but a common fiacre* was stationed behind her house, and she crossed the garden privately, and in the darkness of the night, to this vehicle, which vvas waiting at the garden- gate. In this way, and in the dress he had described, she proceeded from her bouse accompanied by Bergami and Dumont. Some criticisms had been made on the language in which the bill belbre their Lordships was drawn up, and it had been made a question as lo what ought to be called decent or in- Glenbervie, bufrejoined her Majesty at Naples. Lady Elizabeth Forbes returned to England to see her sisler. Mr. Craven went to Germany on family affairs, and in order to meet his mother, tlie Margravine of Anspacb. Sir W. Gell was attacked with the ;out and obliged to resign bis situation. Captain Este joined his regiment, in consequence o\ the renewal of the war ; and, in fine, from a variety of different causes her Majesty was forsaken by the different English persons who composed her Court. She sought by every means in her power to replace them by others of the same country ; but, from various causes, she was unable to obtain any, save Lieut. Hannam, R.N. who became her private secretary. In this situation she was of course obliged to have recourse to other individuals, and to form an Italian suite. Both the Hon. Keppel Craven and Sir W. Gell have since resumed their situations about her Majesty's person. So much for the desertion of her English attendants. * Well, and -what was there in all this. Babb Doddington relates, that he used frequently to accompany Frederick, Prince of Wales, father of the late king, in a hackney-coach, along with the princess, to fortune-tellers, bull-baitings, &c. These frolics are common enough among loyal persons. Burke says, kings are rtaturullyfoni of Im company, therefore, why may they not sometimes prefer a cammonfiacre to a carriagt, 7 46 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. decent conduct. Now he would ask any man, whether, if the facts he had stated were proved, there would not be evidence of conduct of the most in decent kind— evidence sufficient to support the charge of most indecent and disgustjng conduct, not only if applied lo a person of the rank of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, but to any woman of common delicacy in any rank oF life.' He must here observe, that it appeared lo him no small aggravation of the charge, that this Bergami was, at the same lime that he entered her Majesty's ser-vice, and during the period of Ihi.s di-.j^usling inler- cour,se, a married man. He was aware that adultery was a cninfi which could scarcely be aggravated, but here there was a double adultery. He had now again to stale, what he -was afraid he should have occasion too often lo repeat to their Lordships, that the evidence proved these acts of famtliarily and in tercourse to have continued daily, and wiihoul interruption. It would be proved, that during her Majesty's residence at Naples, she and Bergami were in the habit of breakfasting together; that they were observed to come from their rooms at the same hour in the morning, and to retire about the same period in the evening. It would also be proved, that her Majesty dismissed from the attendance on her in her bed-room the female servants who were in the habit of assisting in undressing lier, and that this remarkable circumstance occurred — that Bergami v^-as the only individual Rmong her servants who en tered her apartment without intimation of his presence being v'-anled. This was a liberty wbich no other person in her suite could venture to lake, but he entered at all times without any previous notice. Thus he went on^ with a daily assumplihe fostering hand best calculated to attend to its wants. Here, however, it was to be observed, that though her Majesty knew that Bergami was married, she gave out to those about her that he was not. She stated that the child which she was anxious to take under her royal protection was Bergami's, by some illicit connexion. That Bergami was an unmarried man who had had a child was surely no recommendation calculated to increase the regard of a mistress for her servant : she, however, made no difficulty on this point, but, as he had stated, received the child into her house. In the the month of May her Majesty removed from Genoa to Milan, leaving Lady Charlotte Campbell behind. She 'was afterwards joined by this lady at Milan, 48 T&IAX OF THE QUEEN. but who soon afterwards quitted the family. In travelling from Genoa to Milan she was accompanied by Bergami, who, though in the characteir of her ¦ courier, was seen frequently to go up to the carriage and converse with her. Their Lordships would recollect that he had stated that Lady Charlotte Camp bell did not accompany her Majesty on this occasion. It was, as he had said, observed, that during the journey her Majesty frequently conversed with Bergami, oflfered him refreshments, and showed him repeated, marks of attention, he being all this time still habited and serving as a courier. When Lady Charlotte Campbell left her Majesty at Milan, no English lady remained in her suite. One would have thought that, considering the high rank vyhich she occupied—considering that she was ; in the situation of ex pecting soon to become Queen Consort of this country — one would ha'v^ thought thai she would have been anxious to have had constantly about her person some English ladies of distinction, or, at least, that she would have looked out for ladies of similar rank in her native country of Brunswick, or in that part of the continent in which she resided. But, quite the contrary, she received here into her service and confidence a person whom she had never seen before, a person of vulgar manners and totally uneducated; and (was it credible .?) this person was another sister of Bergami's. Such was the power of this man over her, that this person dignified by the title of Countess of Oldi, was received into her house as her principal attendant. Thus their Lordships had now under the same roof wilh her Majesty, two sisters, the mother, the brother, and the child of Bergami ; one sister sitting at table with the Queen as her lady of honour, while the other dined with the servants, The brother, who, he believed, was also a courier, the mother, and Bergami lived at this time with the sister among the servants: This was the state of things in May, 1815. Bergami was anxious that the new lady of honour should not be known to be his sister; but the fact existed, that this person, called the Countess of Oldi, whom her Majesty made her compaiiion and placed in the .same situation which had been formerly filled by the Ladies Elizabeth Forbes, Charlotte Lindsay, and Charlotte Campbell, was no other than the sister, of the courier Bergami. He certainly did not ask their Lord ships to decide on suspicion ; but he would ask them, what cause, ^what motive, there could be for the introduction of this woman as«maid of honoui', and the rest of Bergami's family in different capacities, into her Majesty's establishment. He did not'ask them to scrutinize her Majesty's conduct tob minutely, but could they for a moment doubt the' inference to be drawn from these facts when coupled with the others which he had stated ? '^ Her Majesty did not continue long at Milan ; she set out on a tour to Venice; still accom panied by her courier Bergami, whom she treated with the usual familiarity. In this journey to Venice, which took place in the mpnth of May or June, 1815, she was accompanied by Mr. Drummond Burrell. Lord Gwydir here rose and stated, that the learned counsel was not correct. Mr. Drummond Burrell had not accompanied the Queen to Venice in the journey alluded to. The Attorney-General was sorry he had unintentionally misltated tfie nanie of the gentleman who was at this time with the Queen. He ought to have said Mr. W. Burrell, not Mr. Drummond Burrell. ~[Here the learned gentle man was again interrupted by an observation made within the bar.] He again begged pardon : he wished to apologise to their Lordships for M mistake he had made. He certainly did not mean to cast- the slightest .re flection on eiither of the gentlemen whose names he had mentioned. - (A crj qf " Go on.'"j The noble Lord would excuse him in mentionirig the name of TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 49 Mr. W. Burrell ; he only meant to call their Lordships' attention to the fact, that he was the only English gentleman who accompanied her Majesty to Venice. He did not suppose that Mr. W. Burrell was acquainted with the familiarities which had taken place between the Queen and Bergami, and had no intention to wound the feelings of any person connected with the gentlemen whose names he had mentioned. CLoud cries of " Go on.") He was about to state to their Lordships a fact which occurred at Venice. Her Majesty resided at an hotel in Venice. One day after she bad dined, during which time Bergami had waited.on her at table, she was observed by one of the servants of the hotel to take a gold chain off her neck, and put it on his : this transaction was. accompanied by much familiarity and playfulness. Ber gami withdrew the chain from his neck, and replaced it on the person of her Majesty. This reciprocal toying was continued for some time. Why did he mention this fact ? He did not mention it on its own account, but to show how rapidly the liimiliarity between her Majesty and Bergami increased, and how much influence that man had acquired over the mind of his royal mis tress. After this scene, Bergami withdrew to a place where he sat retired from the rest of the servants. Upon the whole, nothing he thought could more con clusively prove that great intimacy which had grown up between this man and the Queen than the fact he had stated. On the return of the Queen to Milan Mr. W. Burrell quitted her Majesty's service at the villa Villani. It was observed, that in proportion as the English left her Majesty she became less and less reserved in her intercourse with Bergami. In this villa it was observed that she presented him with a gown of blue silk which she had worn, and which he afterwards wore in the mornings ; it was also observed that there, as at all other places, his room was very near Jjer's, and that there was a communication between the apartments which might facilitate the passing from one to the other without the notice of the servants. After Mr. Burrell was gone, and there was no longer any English in her Majesty's train, her familiarities with all her servants-became greater. She frequently played at games with them. He did not impute this to her Majesty as an offence, he only alluded to it as a circumstance arising out of her infatuated .and licentious attachment. Having left the villa Villani, she visited in Augiist, 1815, Mont St. Gothard, still accompanied by Bergami. At Van- nes, a very remarkable transaction took place, Her Majesty stopped at an inn in that place, where she dined, and it would appear in evidence that she retired with Bergami to a bed-room, and was there locked up wilh him for a considerable time. This happened in the day-time, and under circum stances in which there could be no possible occasion for the attendance of this man on her person. He was still in the character of a courier. After dinner they visited Madonna del Monte, where they slept, and next day went to Berromeo. When her Majesty came from Germany she had been at this place, and then the best room which the hotel afforded had been assigned her. It was naturally to be expected that she would occupy the same room again, and it was at her command ; .but this room had no com munication with any other, and it was therefore worthy of remark, that on this second visit to Berromeo she selected another and very inferior apart ment, but which communicated directly with Bergami's room. This conduct was sui'ely_ very singular. What reason was there for Bergami having on all occasions a room next to her Majesty's ? Why was this arrangement sa studiously foUowed. Why was the room which her Majesty had occupied when she first visited Italy, and which Was now again offered her, declined for a meaner one ? The reason was obviously traced to that increased attach- 50 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ment Which she had formed for Bergami. She took care on this occasion tblt his room should be near her's, for no other reason but to afford .the means of carrying on that intercourse which, from the scenes he had already da- scribed, must be inferred to have previously subsisted between them. Her Majesty next proceeded to Bellenzoni, and here the intimacy between his^ and Bergami continued, apd his influence was carried to such a height, that he now sat at table wilh her. He had nfever before attempted thus publicly though they had often breakfasted together privately. He , had never before sat doiVn to dine with her Majesty, but now at this place that step was for the first time taken, and he was admitted to dint with her Majesty in his courier's dress. Did this conduct accord wilh the dignity becoming a Princess ? What entitled this man to such an honour? If his merits justified his, promotion, would it not have been, more becoming to have raised him lo those dignities which he had since ob-- tained, before such marked favour was shown him ? But her Majesty's zeal to reward him wa-; loo impatient for delay. Could this, he asked their Lord ships, be regarded as mere levity, as a pardonable familiarity resulting frpm foreign manners, or a natural vivacity of spirits ? Their Lordships, he appre hended, would attach but little weight to a justification of this kind. When they looked to the illustrious rank of the Princess, and observed her keeping up so close and continued an intimacy with a menial servant, treating him on every occasion as her familiar ajisociate and confidential friend, they would feel themselves at a loss to explain such demeanour except upon one supposi tion. Was such conduct ever before heard of, he would not say amongst the highest ranks of life, but amongst the middle classes of society ? If it was not the custom amongst them to admit menial servants to the same table — if it was considered improper by private individuals — it must in ' the case of her Royal Highness be viewed as most indecorous and disgusting. It could , be accounted for only by that unfortunate attachment which she had formed, and to, that criminal intercourse, Ihe usual effect of which was to throw down all distinctions' between the parties to it, 19 raise the obscure to a level with the high, and induce the one to claim- equal privileges and attentions with the other. On this occasion they visited Lugano, where their Lordships would find decisive evidence that the same adulterous intercourse which had taken place elsewhere was renewed. The same arrangements With regard to the occupation of rooms were made, and the chamber of the courier Bergami ad joined to that of the Princess of Wales. If th'ese facts should be sup<- PORTED IN EVIDENCE, no doubt could romaih jn the minds of their Lord ships that a criminal intercourse was regularly carried on. On their return from this tour the Princess established berself near Como, in a place called Deste. Here their rooms were divided only by a small cabinet, and werfe apart from those occupied by the rest of the family. Here too, as on former occasions, they retired at night and rose in the morning about the same time. It was now conceived that appearances would be better preserved if Bergami were raised to a higher rank in the Princess's service^ and he was accordingly appointed her chamberlain. After this advancement he always dined at her table,' together with her dame.d'honncur, the Countess Oldi, his sister. She remained here till November, 1815, when she embarked on board the Levia than, on a voyage to Sicily. The best arrangements which suggested them selves at this time were made for her accommodation, and a cabin adjoining to her's was fitted up for two female attendants. When, however, she came on board, directions were given, to alter the arrangement, and the cabin jus^ mentioned was appropriated to the use of Bergami. In the course of her TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 51 voyage she visited Elba, and arrived at Palermo on the 26lh of November. Bergami still dined at her tabic, and it was remarkable that on their travels 'they endeavoured to avoid as much as possible the observations of English persons. While on board the familiarities which probably took place between them were concealed, but they were accustomed lo walk arm in arm upon deck, and to manifest every sign of the warmest altachmenl Al Palermo, the Princess went to court with Bergami in a magnificent hussar dress. From thence she departed and went to Messina, where she remained till the 6th of January, 1816. Here her bed -room was; as on preceding occasions, near to that of Bergami, separated from it, however, by tliat in which the Countess Oldi, his sister, slept. The outer room was always kept locked, but a female servant frequently overheard her in conver.salion with Bergami. This servant, when :eiil for, had more than once observed her coming undressed from the direction of Bergami's chamber through that of the Countess Oldi. It was remarked also that they frequently retired at an e;urly hour, and were not seen again till llie following day, the Princess requiring none of that female assistance which ladies of high rank u-^ually make use of She often withdrew without any apparent cau-;e, became more and more regardless other person, and still more attached lo thai individual whom she had selected as the object of .so many favours. She called him " her friend," and sometimes " her heart," and behaved with a degree of attention and familiarity towards him tljat could only be explained by considering them as evidence of an adulte rous connexion. On the 6(h January, she embarked on board his Majesty's frigate the Clurinde, the same vessel in which she had formerly sailed, and commanded bv the same officer. Bergami, who on the previous voyage had attended her as a menial servant, was now her chamberlain, but the honour able and gallant officer who commanded felt that he should degrade himself by sitting al the same table with a person 'whom he had known in his former capacity. Captain Pechell, therefore, inlreated her that if .she condescended to come on board his ship she would spare him the disgrace and scandal of sitting at table with a menial servant. The conduct of her Majesty proved what were her feelings and the impression made on them by the force of this objection. Had Bergami obtained the dignity which he then held by worthy means, had his merits or fidelity entitled him to so many marks of distinction, ¦would not her Majesty have expressed the utmost resenlraeiil at Captain Pechell's objection ; would she not have said, that he wilh whom she did not consider that .she demeaned herself by associating, was fit society for any British officer, be he who he might ; than an insult had been offered to her, and to the nation which had provided her with ships of war in order to visit foreian countries ; that she would complain to superior authority, and not go on board till .she should have received reparation? But w,as this the conduct of her Majesty on that occasion? If Bergami's advancement were a proof of his merits, and his merits alone, would not this, or something like this, have been her Majesty's reply ? But the inward consciousness that the advancement of that person originated in a licentious passion, and was founded on a gross and scandalous intercourse, prevented the adoption of a step which would otherwise have been perfectly natural. She took a day or two to deliberate whether she should give up the society of her paramour for that of Captain Pechell, and stated to the latter, that Captain Briggs, of the Leviathan, had not objected to the admission of Bergami to his table. The answer was, that there was this material difference between the situation of Captain Briggs and Captain Pechell, that the former had never known Bergami in his menial situation, but that he had actually waited behind Captain Pechell's chair. 52 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. This deay of a day or two furnished a convincing proof of the influence ac quired over her by this unhappy infatuation. She submitted to be insulted by an Englisfi captain (for an insult itwas, unless the circumstances justified his remonstrance, and he was sure their Lordships would see that he had only done what he felt to be his duty.) Rather than sacrifice the society of Bergami she went on board, declined Captain Pechell's table, and ordered a separate one, at which she continued for several days to dine, and suffer the degrada' Sion of associating with a person whom the captain refused to admit. She anded at Syracuse, where a similar arrangement as to the selection of rooms was again made, and, after a stay of three days, she proceeded to Catania. Here Bergami's bed-room was at first at a distance from her's, but a change soon took place, and means were adopted to secure a regular access. Again it was observed thtit they retired at an earlier hour than other persons, and on one occasion the files de chambre having sat up later than usual observed the door of Bergami's room open, and the Princess coming out of it under circumstances which satisfied them that she had passed the night, there. She was undressed, and had un der her arm a pillow, on which it was her uniform custom to sleep. This fact alone, if proved in evidence, would be sufficient to satisfy any jury, that a cri minal intercourse had taken place; but when added to all the other circum stances must remove all doubt on that subject from the mind of every man. It would appear too, that her Majesty had conceived an extraordinary fond ness for an infant child of Bergami, between two and three years old, which slept in the same room and often in the same bed with her. She treated it with every mark of parental affection, sometimes calling it 'princess;' and the child, on the other hand, would cry, and was with difficulty pacified when she happened to quit the room. The child called ' mamma ;' and these cir cumstances altogether persuaded the servants at Catania thatMt was not the fiirst occasion on which an adulterous intercourse had been carried on. Hav ing conferred so many honours on Bergami, she now procured for him the dig nity of a Knight of Malta, and always addressed him as Chevalier. What ne cessity was there for this, or what reason, but that' guilty attachment which had been so often indicated, could be assigned for it? Whilst at Catania, the no bility tendered to her their respects, and she enjoyed at first the society of the first persons there ; but after a short residence she became indifferent to all so ciety but that of her paramour, and they gradually withdrew. From this place' she proceeded to Augusta. It being now four o'clock, the Lord-Chancellor moved an adjournment. Seve ral peers were desirous of proceeding, but it was finally agreed to adjourn ;' the Attorney-General having observed to their Lordships With considerable em phasis, that he had not yet gone through one-half ofhis disgusting narrative. FOURTH:-DAY.— Monday, August 21. charges against the auEEN continued. The Attorney-General said, be had now to resume the statement of facts at the part which he left off on Saturday. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that in that statemeht he had left her Majesty at Catania, in TRIAL OF THE QUEENi 53 the island of Sicily. He^ however, begged leave, before he proceeded w ith the narrative, to supply an omission which he made on Saturday. On tha day he had stated that Dr. Holland was in the suite of her Majesty, but he had not stated at What time that gentleman left her service. He, now thought it . riecessary to apprise their Lordships, lest they should suppose that Dr. Holland had continued with her Majesty up to the last dale of Which he had spoken, that that gentleman left her at Venice, in the tour which her Majesty made to that city in the month of April or May, 1815. She had previously taken into her service a Mr. Howland and a Mr. Flynn, officers of the navy. He would nOvv proceed with his statement in the order he had hitherto follow ed. He had, as already stated, left her Majesty at Catania : from thence she went to Augusta, also in Sicily. This journev she made in the month of March, 1816. He had already informed their Lordships, that, during the residence of the Queen in Catania, she procured for Bergami the title of a Knight of Malta. Upon her arrival at AngUstaj she obtained for him a new dignity; — the title of Baron de la Franeino. He was not aware what circum stances could entitle him to such an honour, or that any thing could have in duced her Majesty to procure this dignity for him, except the influence which lie had obtained over her, ti\ consequence of the familiarity and licentious in- tercourse whichbhe had shown to have subsisted between them. He had noW to state another fact, which would prove the power Bergami had obtained over his mistress, a power, which, as he alWays said, was to be accounted for by not only the existence of a licentious familiarity, bat an adulterous intercourse between them. Either at Augusta or Catania she sat for her pic ture, or for several pictures. In one instance she sat for her picture in the character of a Magdalen, in a dress in which her person was very much exposed.^ Iri another picture she was painted in the dress of a Turkish lady, and alOng with her was the child Victorine in a similar dress. Bergami was also paint ed in a Turkish dress. One, if not two of these pictures was presented to Bergami. Now, he must here again observe to their Lordships, that to him it was impossible to account lor such marks of favour, upon any other grotmd tlian that of influence obtained by the adulterous. intercourse which, upOn the fests he had described, he attributed to the parties. Her Majesty having resolved to leave Augusta, set out on a voyage to Tunis, and alterwards visited Greece. For this voyage she hired a vessel of that kind caWcd a poldcre ', and here he had again to state, that arrangements were made on board this vessel similar to those their Lordships would recollect h« had already described on Other occasions, for having the sleeping apartmen,ts of Bergami and the Qeieen near each other, and for obtaining facility of communication. Her Mjgesty's cabin, as Well as those of the Countess of Oldi, communicated with the dining cabin, and on the other side were some apartments for the other female attendants. There were two doors leading into the cabin, one for the Queen and the other for her female servants. For a few days Bergami slept at some distance from the Queen's apartment. But, very soon, one of the Aij&ts, that which served for a communication of the servants into the eating room, was ordered to be closed up, leaving only one entrance lo the dining • " Very much exposed." What despicable trifling ! How all her actions have been noted down by the lurking villains employed to oBservfe her conduct I , But where is the indeUdd^ of exposing the person befoi'e an artist. Nothing more common. It is no more indelicate =than exposing tbe-pErson to il' physician. The pr^'euioili requires this saeri^ce'. Queen Anne, a very orthodox woman, JBei to cha-nc-e her sbift whJle th-b chapj.ain ebab jRAYEns.— See Walpole's Beminisoencet. '8 54 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. room and the Queen's bed room. A bed was ordered to bebrought for Bergami's accommodation into the dining cabin, and this bed was so placed, that, when the door of the Queen's sleeping room was open, she and Bergami could sep each other while in bed, and hold conversation together. The only access to her Majesty's bed room was through the eating room in which Bergami slept, and when the door of this room was shut there was no means of access to the Queen's. The door of the eating cabin was constantly shut after they retired to rest, and through it, as he had stated, was the only communication to the Queen's .sleeping apartment. Now he would ask their Lordships what con clusion could be drawn from this arrangement but that which the others he had stated had suggested ? What other reason except that of facilitating, an adulterous intercourse could be assigned for her Majesty having, either by land or sea access to her sleeping apartment open only to Bergami, and closed to all the rest of her suite? Her Majesty proceeded, as he had stated, to Tunis, and from thence to Utica. In the house in which she slept there were only two bed rooms'; one was allotted to her Majesty and Victorine, and another to the Countess of Oldi and the other female attendants. The rest of the suite were accommodated at the houses of different consuls in the town. It would appear in evidence, that, when her Majesty stopjied at this place, Bergami came in the morning, at a very early hour ¦ before her Majesty was up, and entered her apartment. Without asking leave, or giving the slightest notice, he passed into her bed room, and there remained alone with her for a considerable time. Here he might be permitted to ask, why Bergami took this liberty ? — why he went to her Majesty's apart ment without being desired ? Their Lordships would say whether it waste be supposed she would thus admit him to her bed room, if gross familiarity and licentious intercourse had not previously taken place. It was true, she had by this time procured for Bergami titles and dignities ; but her having raised, him from obscurity to distinction did not furnish any ground for thus admitting him to her bed room. Their Lordships might perhaps consider the details he had to state as fatiguing from their sameness. But, though many of the facts he had stated, and had still to relate, were unimportant in themselves, they were material as leading to the conclusion he had endeavoured to impress on their Lordships' minds^* that the chain of circumstances could only be accounted for on the existence of an adulterous intercourse between Bergami and her Maejsty. He had now to call their Lordships' attention to a fact which was cal culated to remove every, doubt from their minds, if any yet remained. Her Majesty visited Savona. The house in which she slept there had only two room.'i, and the outer room, which was assigned to Bergami, had no bed. [Here the Lord Chancellor asked at what date this took place.] They were at Savona on the 12th of April ; they had been at Utica on the Sth. [A noble asked where Savona was situated.] The place was in Africa, near Tunis; It was called either Savona or Savenha. He had it Savona. As he had slated, at this place, the outside room, assigned to Bergami, had no bed; the inner room, which was occupied by her Majesty, had one, and a. very » So, so, TVIr. Au.orney-Genera!, we are to have a sort of accumulative adultery, like the constructive treason of 1794. If you cannot establish any posilive criminality, you will state, many suspicious circumiiiances, and thieri leave their Lordships to infer absolute guilt on Ihcir honour. r'His is worae than the jaundiced Othfello.— " 'Tis not to make me jealous. To say my wife is fair, feeds well, loves company, 1 Ib free of speech, sings, plays, and dances well ; Where virtue-is these are most virtuous." TRIAl OF THE QUEEN. 55 large one. There was no [access to the bed in the inner room except through Bergami's. It would be proved in evidence, that in the morning, after her Majesty had slept here, her bed had the appearance of having been slept in by two persons. Their Lordships would recollect that he had stated that there was only one passage to her Majesty's bed room ; that that passage led from Bergami's room, and that in his room there was no bed. In an ordinary case this would be sufficient proof to a jury that the crime of adultery had been committed that night ; because, when their Lordships found that there were no means of access to the Queen's bed room but through Bergami's apartment, and that her Majesty's bed bote in the morning the marks of two persons having lain in it, they could come to no other conclusion but tlie natural one —that tliey had committed adultery. When, too, they found cir cumstances of this kind occurring night after night, from time to time, and in different places, there was no one could doubt that the evidence bore out the charge of a continued course of adultery. From the coast of Africa her Majesty sailed to Athens, and touched at Malta in her way. They arrived at Athens on the 22d April, 1816, and afterwards visited the Greek Islai^ds^ and stopped some time at Melito. Excursions were also made to Troy and Ephesus. He would state a fact which occurred at Athens, which would show how little of the respect due to her high rank was paid by Ber gami to the f rincess. At Athens, the captain of an English ship which touched there landed, and called on her Royal Highness. He was introduced to her Royal Highness sitting in an alcove in a garden, in which were also the Countess of Oldi and Bergami; the latter seated, and wearing a foraging- cap. Her Royal Highness rose with the politeness which distinguished all persons of high rank, to receive the officer, and desired him to be seated. Bergami continued seated ; and, after a short time, left the place without making the least obeisance, or paying those marks of respect which the officers of a court were always expected to pay - he left the room as if he were a person of equal rank to her Royal Highness. Why did he mention this fact ?— Because it showed that Ihe familiarity which had taken place be tween them had been carried to such an extent thai he considered his Royal mistress to be reduced to a level with himself. This fact was, nothing of itself^ but it was one which, taken in connexion with others, was very important, and would have weight with a jury. It plainly showed the assumption of authority by Bergami, and how completely he thought himself relieved from the necessity of paying any mark of respect to her Majesty. From Athens her Royal Highness proceeded by the way of Constantinople to Ephesus. Here another circumstance of a very remarkable nature occurred. Her Majesty directed a bed to be placed under a vestibule, which fronted a church shaded by trees. Dinner was prepared, but the weather was hot, and her Maj arty had retired lo the vestibule to repose herself. Bergami was seen coming from this vestibule in dishabille, when no other person was sup posed to be there but her Majesty. Dinner was afterwards ordered to be served. in the vestibule for her Maje.sty and Bergami. She sat on the small bed," and he beside her. None of the attendants were admitted to the vesti bule, and she and Bergami remained alone together for a considerable time. Now if her Royal Highness required any attendance within this vestibule, why were not the females of her suite employed for that purpose ? Why was Bergami, and Bergami alone, admitted to her bed-room ? Soon after her Majesty proceeded to Aun, a place in Syria, where again Bergami was treated with the same extraordinary familiarity. A tent was. erected for her Royal Highness, and a bed fitted up for hgr within it. While she wasli;i bed in this 56. JCRIAX OF THE QUEeN. fent, bergami was seen sitting in his shirt-sleeves, arid almo.st undreSSed, dJi the side of the bed. From this tehthe was afterwards seen cOfeHlHg in a stdte of wiidress. Now, if her Majesty required any attendance in this teht. Why had hhe not called upon the Countess Oldi; or some other female of htr suite? How did it happen that Bergami should be the person required to attend her Hvbiife she- was in bed, and that he should wait upon her dressed in the un becoming manner which had been described ? This was certainly a circiltfM Stance of strong suspicion. But it perhaps might be said that it r'equired some thing MoiiETo PROVE ADULTERY. He must observc, however, that he betie-ved that in any ordinary case this would be enough to prove the pommissiWi ©f that crime before any court. But their Lordships would besides recollecti that strong as it was, this was not an isolated, fact. It was one of a series of the same sort, and he might venture to assert that such ¦ familiarity could not be supposed to exist between siieh persons without a guilty' intercourse. Nd wdman Would allow stich a liberty to be taken with her, unless by a man to Whom she had granted the last favour. This might be said not only in the cise of a Priheess and a man who had been. het Courier, but in the case of, atfj* man and woman of respectability in any rank of life. From Aun her .Majestj' lirodeeded to Jerusalem. Here, not satisfied with the dignities .she?' had if-. ready procured for her favourite — nor even with having made him' her eba?tii Berlain, and procured for him the order of Malta and the title of Baroh dSM Francia-^she obtained for him the order of St. Sefiulchre. Still, not cOnt^ffl with this, she instituted an order of her own, which was called " the Ord61? , the most menial -offices for this servant that a woman could do for man ; that' she had even at times engaged herself in mending his clothes. On arriving ; in Italy in September, the Princess proceeded to the Villa d'Este, on the lake of Como, which she had loccupied before, and on reachmgthat place Bergami'-s , ., -, . ; ' ¦ ,' " • ' ' - '_ --"'', - ' ^ J • " Proved !'' but -what se^t 0^' proo/". On' tlie eyidence of suCh a wretch as Mojoehi? See this man's exaniiOation. " '' " ' 9 58 Tpj^l, OF TH^ ftUE^If, hjother was elevaled to the situation of prefect pf i}\^ palac?, K[is rijpthcr-^ who ,w-as farniliarly termed the grandmother, not only by her ^W^/? ff*^ butby herMajesty herself— was now ordered to b-ecall,e(| Madame If iviai,,a^(^ the mothesr and brother had separate tables provided fqr t^em frpm tl>,S re?t.(^ the servants. After vyhat he had stated to their Lordships he should nqi, tr^., pass on their attentipn by mentionjng various Other circumstances ttiat occt|fT?4 at that place, tq support the charge! He migbt, however, mention, tbat, dUr, rin^h§r Majesty's absence from d'Este, a theatre had been fitted up at that; villa. On her return thither she often performed on the stage— she in ppe character, ajid Bergami ^potbert.. The characters ?he performed were of ^ 'very low kind. Bergami generally pf.k.fo,rmep the character o? ^hj^ LOVER.. He pnly stated this ^s another proof of tl?e great degree o& faiPiUi-' aril Y which siiksisted betvyeen them. Sooji after her return to, d'B^sjtejhe nsiade a tpiir to Lugano, and some other places. In the course of this tpur ^ r^ngarkable circumstance occurred; — One morning a courier was , desp^tch^ij, vvitb ^ letter to a person at Milan, and returned with an answer late that nigl)(t, or rather early nejit morning, while all the Princess's household were at resl;. The courier, feeling it to be his duty to deliver thti letter immediately to Bei;- garni, whose office it was tp receive il, went to that person's champs-/ We ¦vyas not there ; but in a short time ^e saw him coming in his shirt and rq^e ^f, c/(a?;j6re, out of the Princess's, chamber tp his own. Heje he would asl?, h9.\!Sf it had happened th^tat that hour, vyhen all tlje other members of the famiJly,, were at rest, this man should be seen cpming in that undress fcoin his misT:, tress's room ? Observing that the circumstance was noticed by the courier, ! ^nd being desirous pf making some excuse, he told him. that he had heard hisi Cb'ld, cry, and had gone to quiet her, and the next rapniiiig he desired the coi^^ rier-tp say nothing about it. But the .fact forcibly struck the man, and th,e ipr ferenpp'from it was plain. Bergami having come oiit of the princess's rpppj at that unseasonable hour, their chambers also being separated froin thps^ pfj the rest of the family, how was the occurrence to be accounted for, except, by the supposition that a criminal intercourse^existed between them? XWs fact alone would be sufjScient to convict a woman in an ordinary case. No reason 'cpuW be assigned for Bergami's conduct on the occasion but thai; whi<;h. be b^d beep ?o often obliged to state tP their Lordships. After a short tjlme the Pfincess visited a place which had since ^^^'^ purchased at her expense fpr; Bergami, and to this he particularly wished to direct their Lordships' attentip;^, It 'vfa.s called the Villa Bergami, or Barona. Not content witji having previ ously lavished on him titles and honpurs, she finally thpughH proper to eKpepd; several thousand pounds from her oyvn fui^d^ in the pi|rcbase pf this estate, for Kijgi near Milan. People do not in general act without reason pr rnptjve, and; tb,ere, 'vyas no assignable motive or reason for the Pri#ic?5s's cpnduct but oiie oi>|y. Her Royal Highness resided.ijjr some time at that place, and, during,«^, c^ruivaj whicb was held there, he \vas instructed to say th^t the most scajilar; lous and disgraceful scenes occurred, and it would appear that the house ,ii}| vyhich the princess pf Wales resided deserved rather the name of a; cPWimppi b)c:otli.el than of a. p^tlace* It vvas frequented by persons not correspondii;ia tO; h^r station and raot, who properly maintained their dignity, and woiUdrJfe^l tbeWr^elves hpnoured,by her pajtrppag? 5 but by perspps of -the Ipw-^st clas^,. "T^gse ¦were circMmstarjces ysrhicb he should npt have brpught iitjd^ thpir I^qrqshim'' not.ice, if they had^npt. occurr^di.asihein^^t presume, by the Qtieen's- permissioh. Undoubtedly, it might be said, that^ifthey took_place in the kitchen, the. offi,c;es, Of in the lower parts of her ^jyesty's house,, they Qjighl- nqi to be taken notice 6f In the slightest degree, as in that case it 9p^ld fey ijp meafl*,b* TtttAL Of- THE qUeEN. 59 presumed thai she was necessarily aware of them. But, unfortunately, their Loi'dships v\^ould observe that they did pass undet" her Majesty's notice ; -and, so'far from expressing any degree of dislike or disafiprpbation, she did know of tbem, and seemed to approve of them. Here, again, it might be said, that although Ihey proved a very unbecoming sort of improper and indecent con duct, they ought not to be taken to prove the existence of an mlulterous inter course. But when they were taken in conjunction with the other facls . which he had mentioned, they certainly went to show, that such on adulterous ihtercourse did exist between her Majesty and Bergami, and that the conti- hiiancc of that intercourse so operated upon her Majesty's niin.d, as to render her entirely regardless of that decorum which she ought to have maintained. Their Lordships must see, that though these facts, in ihem^elves, were en tirely DIFFERENT FROM THE DIRECK CHARGE AGAINST HEU MAJESTY, they afforded but too strong a corroboration of it. After the Queen's return to the Barona, she made a journey through the Tyrol inlo Germany. A re markable circumstance took place almost at the commenceniciit of that jour ney, which would prove to their Lordships beyond doubt that such an inter course did exist. On her arrival at a place called Charnitz, it was necessary that feergami should return to Inspruck, in order, to obtain a passport for the Continuance of this journey. It appeared that Bergami was necessarily ab sent upon his departure from Charnitz to Inspruck, and, till his return, during those hours at which her Majesty and her household were accustomed to retire lo rest. Upon this occasion her Majesty, had on,e of her Jilles-de- chambre to sleep in her room during the night. Bergami returned from Inspruck in the, 'ipiddle of that night ; and what was the conduct then pursued by her Majesty f What, he should ask their Lordships, would have been the conduct of a person under ordinary circumstances who had gone upon such a mission ? Their Lordships would naturally suppose, that returning at the dead hour of night he retired to rest; but no — he came into that room (her Majesty's female at tendant being at that time there asleep.) Upon so'coming in, her Majesty ordered her female attendant to retire, faking her bed along with her. In the middle of the night her Majesty gave these instructions to her female servant, and Bergami was left alone with her. Now what was the reason for all this? "fie asked their Lordships whether that fact alone, in ordinary cases, would not be held a conclusive proof of adultery ? and he would ask them also, with great submission, whether, if it should be so considered in an ordinary case, it did not amount to a still stronger proof here — whether it did not amount to d still stronger evidence of an adulterous intercourse, as applied to the case of two persons whose rank in hfe was so different ? VVlwt other inference could their Lordships draw from the crrcnmstaiice other Majesty's ordering the at- .tendant to retire, but that she might be so left alone with B?rgami for the re mainder of the night ? Independent of any other facts, supposing there were nothing else in this case before them, this alone must satisfy their Lordships that an adulterous intercourse did then take place between the parties. Bo!; this was not all : in the course of this journey her Majesty proceeded to Mu-- nich, and afterwards to Carlsruhe, where she remained nine days. At Carls- Tuhe a similar arrangement took place about the bed-rooms to that which he had -Bo often had occasion to call their Lordships' attention. The bed-room distinguished by the number 10 was appropriated to the use of her, Majesty; No. 11 was an entry or passage-room between No. 16 and No. 12. No. 12 was appi'opriatgd td the Count Bergami. A door opened from No. 16, and another from No. 12, into 'No. 11, so 60 TRIAL OF THfi QUEEN. that any one might pass without difficulty from the chamber occupied by her Majesty into the room in which Bergami sle^it, or from Bergami's apart ment into her Majesty's. He had now to notice one very importaitt circumstance. At Carlsrhue her Majesty was one day found in Bergami|j room: she was sitting upon his bed, and he was in bed with bis arms aroiind the neck of her Majesty, She was surprised in this extraordinary situation by one pf the fenfmes-de-chambre, who was going into the room by chance. Now, would a circumstance of this sort lake place, he would ask, unless that kind of iniercourse existed between the parties to which he was so often rekictantly obliged to call their Lordships' attention ? In that bed was^ found a cloak which her Majesty was afterwards seen wearing; and in that bed, also, certain marks were observed by one of the servants, 'fhese marks, ¦without his saying any thing further al present, would lead their Lordships, perhaps, lo infer that which he wished them to understand. Those marks on that bed-^the cloak which was found there — and the manner in which Ber gami was seen with his arms around her Majesty's neck— -these were circum stances their Lordships could not lose sight of. After hearing these, could there be any doubt about the existence of an adulterous intercourse between her Majesty and Bergami ? These facts a/one,* he thought, would be conclusive evidence with their Lordships of an adulterous intercourse having taken place between them : and then, he had also to remark, that all the other facts of this case would go to show their Lordships that that intercourse had so taken place, not iioxy and then merely, but that it was a long-continued one. When these should have been stated, they would sufficiently explain all the other circumstances which he had had to, mention ;— the advancement of Bergami to the honours which were conferred on him ; the circumstances that occurred at Carlsruhe; those which took place at Charnitz, and the others which were' observed on board of the polacre, would all demonstrate conclu sively, if they should be proved (as he believed they would be proved in evidence), not only the conduct stated in the preamble of the bill had sub sisted, but that the adulterous intercourse had taken place between these two persons. From Carlsrhue her Majesty set out in the early part of 1817- (A Peer, we believe Lord Ellenborough, here begged the Attorney-Ge neral to particularize the dates of every fact he stated, as nearly as possible.) The Attorney-General resumed. — Her Majesty set out for the Tyrol in February, 1817; her arrival at Carlsruhe, consequently, would occtir some where about the latter end of February, or the beginning of March, ISlT'- Her ^Majesty visited Vienna, where she remained only for a very short time; and then she went to-^rieste. Upon that journey to Trieste, a two-wheeled carriage was purchased by Bergami, in which the Queen and himself travelled together. Before this her Majesty had been accustomed to travel in a car riage, in which were herself, Bergami, the Countess of Oldi, and the little Piccaroon (her Majesty's protegee). On her journey, however, a carriage vyas used calculated to contain only two persons : and in which Bergami and her Majesty usually travelled together alone. At Trieste she remained but a few days ; but here again observations were made by persons at Trieste upon the state of her Majesty's bed and bed-room. Here again, and in all the other cases*he had, adverted to, an arrangement was made about the situation of the bed-rooms, in order for Ecrgami to be very near her Majesty. There • Yes, perhaps, -when established on unqiMimuible evidence. But these are only the statements of the Attorney-General, which remain to be proved. - ^ TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 61 was a travelling bed and a bed large enough to contain two persons. ] the arrangement he spoke of, Bergami's room was very near her Maje From jesty's, and these observations were made upon the state of those two beds. It would appear to their Lordships in evidence, that there was found the painful ap pearance of two persons having slept in the large bed which was in her Majesty's bed-room ; at the same time that in the smaller bed neither Bergami nor any other person appeared to have slept. At this time also there were washing-basins left in her Majesty's room, which appeared to have been used in thai room, and by two persons. But the strong fact, as he had before had occasion to observe, was — not only were the rooms of her Majesty and Bergami near each other, separate and apart from the rest of the suite, but there were those appearances of two persons having slept in the large bed in her Majesty's apartment, and Bergami was the only person, who, from the arrangement of the rooms, could have access to that one, in order to sleep wilh her. No other person but he could have that access. Under these cir cumstances, their Lordships could feel little doubt or hesitation but that the two persons who slept in her Majesty's room upon this occasion were herself and Bergami; and that, not only from the state and situation of the room, but from the state of the beds. He now came to another circumstance of a most extraordinary character. In the course of this journey her Majesty and ..Bergami frequently, when they had occasion to stop, while the horses were. refreshed or put to, and upon any other occasion where it was necessary for them to slop for a short space of time, would reposa upon the same bed. They would frequently, il was observed, when some delays of this sort took place, go and sit there together. Now he was aware, it might be said, that no conclusion of a criminal nature could bedrawn from the circumstance of Ber gami and her Majesty's being observed tp repose upon the same bed. From that circumstance alone, unaided by others, their Lordships could not deem jt.proved that an adulterous intercourse took place between the parties at Milan. But when their Lordships observed all these additional circum stances, and particularly the facility, which was extended to no other person, of entering her room, and the familiarity — all these things naturally led to a strong suspicion of such an intercourse between them. Their Lordships must be satisfied that the inference to be drawn from these, and from other circumstances arising out of her Majesty's condqct, was that such a one existed between them. It might be supposed, that the Princess of Wales, as she was at that time, wishing, on such occasions, to repose, used to be attended by some other of her household ; by the Countess of Oldi, for instance, or some other female attendant. But how was it that Bergami alone, on the contrary, could venture to use these familiarities with her Majesty? How was it that Bergami alone retired with her, but because there did lake place this sort of intercourse between them? Upon her Majesty's return from Milan, where she had been for some time, to the Barona, it would be proved to their Lordships that Bergami, his mother, and his brother (Ludovico Bergami), who had formerly exercised some of the most menial offices in the palace, were permitted to dine wilh her Majesty ; they were allowed to sit and to eat at her Majesty's table. Even to this fact, ha was aware, it might be said that it was only indicative of great coi)descensio,ti on the part of her Majesty; and that, though such conduct was inconsistent with propriety, and with her rank and dignity as Queen» it proved nothing of itself, beyond, a desire tp show her estimation of the family, and to pay attention to Bergami's mother, and his brother Lewis. But it was not a 6a TklAL Of tut QUfefeJT. little singular that these persons were the family of the man oh whbmliei-' Majesty liad been bestowing these attertlibtiS, ^nd Who werie daily growing round' her. As for the mother of Bergami, he (the Atl<)mey-Geiierdl)co\x\A not find that she had filled any particular situation in her Miajesty s houSA- iold. She was not made lady of honour. The little Piccaroon was dignw fied by ihe title of " Princess," and taken great notice of. He did hot mention these circumstances as going to prove any thing whidh 'was particii- Jarly applicable, to Bergami. The boy Austin was called a" Prince," as well as the other protegk. After her Majesty returned to the Barona she tisited the Villa d'Este. Thence she returned lo Rome, to a palace called Rocanelli. Soon afterwards she purchased a villa, called the Villa Branti. During her residence at RucanelU her Majesty was seen to go into Bergaims b^-room : -but at Villa Branti their Lordships \*ould find more imporfaiif circumstances to have occurred, as affecting this case. At the Villa Branti, as at all other places where her Majesty resided, it vvas arranged that Ber gami's Apartment should be very near that of ber Maje.sty; and there was a Communication through^ a corridor from Bergami's -bed-room into her Majesty's. Bergami was observed, by one of the servants, two or three times, and at a very early hour of the mortiing, going from his own bed room into that of the Princess of Wales, and there remaining with her Majesty, ^ - , ' (A Peer asked when this occurred.) 'The Altorney-Oeneral replied, that, it happened some time in the month of July, I8I7. Their Lordships x*ould have it proved to them, that upon two or three_oecasions it was observed, that, either at night, or at an unseasonably-' early hour in the morning, when the restof the family were retired to rest, Ber-^ gami-was seen coming from his sleeping apartment and going into that of hef Majesty, and there remaining. He would ask their Lordships what this fact proved ? Could they doubt, that a mail, going in that way, at an early hour of the morning, when her Majesty was in bed, going to' her room, and re maining there with her Majesty; could they dotibt that he was guilty? Would their Lordships require any further evidence of adulterous intercourse between these patties ? Could it beat all doubted in an ordinary case ? Could it be doubted whether such an intercourse took place, if a man under these' cir cumstances, at the dead hour of night or at an early hour of the morning, was seen to go, undressed, into the room wherein her Majesty was reposing,^ was there suffered to be alone with her, to remain with her, and was not seen ta come out, even, from that room ? Could any doubt remain upoji their Lordships' minds, that, during that peribd, adulteroiis intercourse took place between these parties? Surely not, as he imagined— more especially when their Lordships found, as they would find, that this was not a solitary instance 'Of this impropriety; for the thing occurred two or three times at the Villa, Branti. At the Villa Branti, as on other occasions, Bergami was admitted into her Majesty's presence wheH she was dressing, and at her toilette ; when ; her Majesty, in short, was in that state of dishabille which made such admis sion very highly improper. He was admitied at all limes, and suffered to be present wheri her attendants were attiring her. In addition to this, their Lordships would find, as he had said before, the fact of Bergami's entering her Majesty's room at night, in the manner already described, observed, seve ral times daring her residence there. From Branti her Majesty- removed, in the month- of August, to her villa near Pesaro, vi^here she afterwards almost entirely resided. At pesaro, the Princess chOS6 rooms for herself and Ber- TRIAI* OF THE QUEEN. G9i gajpi, separate and apart frpin the rQs\ of her suite ; and at Pesiu'P Hhe «iuii« ta.e'lities of intercourse were continued which ha,d bven attended *« »f V"»os« ever^ place which her Majesty had visited, aud every whorfc she had. tiik«n up her residence. So attached did her Majesiy always appear tP the- person and society of Bergami, that his absence seemed to occasion her considiaahl* pain. The greatest interest and anxiety for his' return were constantly ex pressed by her Majesty, and she appeared to be highly gratified when th4t occurred. She was accustomed to watch for his return; and upon one oi;- ca^on actually set out to meet him. Upon his, at length, returning, she \wa» observed to express the greatest joy, and all that fondness and attachmeat which might be ijupposed to exist for each other in two persons. between whoqt such an intercourse existed. [Some Lords here asked, what was the dale of the trAQSactiqns said t» have taken place at Pesaro ?] The Attorney-General said, the month of August, 1817. The Lord Chancellor thought it might be convenient for Mr. .AitorrKy-Q^- nertd to gives the dates of these facts as he went on. The Attorney-General briefly recapitulated the dates of those to yvhich he bad adverted in the course of his speech. Her IMajesty arrived at Trieste in April, 1817; about the 28th June, at the Villa Branti, within a few day&of her arrival at Milan. She was at the Barona in April, 1817. In Febriiaxj; o^ that year, she set out upon her tour into Germany, through the Tyrol, whence she returned to the Barona in April ; from hence she went to Rotq^k - where she purchased Rucanelli and Villa Branti, in June and July; and'thw she went to Pesaro on the Qih of August of that year. From the period qf , her Majesty's departure for this country, excepting only the short time, she was in France, she continued to reside at Pesaro. He had abstained, as in.itch as possible, in the course of his narrative, from entering upon parts of the evidence applying to other places. After ber Majesty look up her resLdeiw^. at Pesaro, she generally remained there, with only, one or two exceptions. Lord Dundas asked at what period the acts alleged as occurring at Pes^rct- took place ? The Attor-ney-Generat believed, soon after her Majesty's going to Pesai>o,ia... August, I8I7. He bad, he said, abstained, in this case, from going through a variety of particular detail of what would be disclosed in evidence re specting her Majesty's residence at Villa d'Este, where she resided for a con 7 sidersble tim«, on the banks of.the Lago di Como. It would be proved in, evidence that she was there in the habit of going out with Bergami in a ^prt of carriage, large enough for only one person to sit doNMfl in,, and another, to sit upon his lap. In^this carriage ^she was in the habit of going outwilb. Bergami, she fitting upon bis lap, and he wilh his arms round her, whiek it was absolutely necessary he should have, in order tq enable him to gujde the hor^e. It would be proved that they were seen together, in a canoe, upon. the lake; and on, one occasion they •v^:mi,E seen bathing ToeBTHaR i;S THE niVER, Brescia. During her residence at Como they were ab* secved together in very indecent situations; and a variety of familiai;itifeg oT that sort would be proved, during her resiclence at Como, by a; variety p{ witnesses, aud upon varipus occasions, which their Lordships would tbi-nk^ s^t- present, it became him to,abstain from more particularly noticing.^ He onlif adverted to them to prove the facilities of intercourse which exi^Jed.*" O^ hef ' return from the East; she brought in her train.a.m^n, who, frqm the accoupt* « given of him by the witnesses, appeawd to ha^e beon-a man of bruitelaiid; 64 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. depraved manners to the last degree: his name was Mahomet, who, at the Villa d'Estfe, at various times, exhibited the most atrocious indecen cies in the presence of her Majesty, Bergami being present with her Majesty during the time of those exhibitions. , They were of so indecent and detestable a character, that it was with the greatest pain he could even mention them.* Here it might be said that these circumstances did not prove adultery ; but if it were proved, the preamble of the Bill, he should contend, was made out. Il would excite in their Lordships a feeling that it proved more— not merely ihdeciency, and 'disgusting indecency, but a want of all moral feijiling. He said, that the woman who could demean and degrade herself to be present at such an exhibition, — he said, and no man could doubt, that such a woman was capable, not only of sacrificing her virtue, but that in the most undis guised and disgusting manner. These facts went to prove, not only that part of the preamble which charged disgusting and improper farhiliarity, but suggested proof also of the adulterous intercourse. Could their Lordships have any doubt, where a woman was capable of acting thus, that when Ber gami and she were in her room alone, and had all the necessary facilities, that that took place which was charged against her, viz. adulterous intercourse With Bergami? There Vvas another circumstance — no ways, howpver, remaik- able in her Majesty's case, because it was always the accompaniment or the forerunner of such a vicious slate. Let them mark the ascendancy^ which this man had obtained over the mind of her Majesty. This circumstance, however, occurred. Their Lordships would find, that, upon her Majesty's first going to Italy, she did that constantly whicb comported with her dignity as an English Princess, and, let him add, as a Protestant Princess. She either had divine service regularly performed at home,' or attended places where it was performed after the rites of t.he Church of England. This regulation continued until a short time after she returned to Genoa, where Bergami first entered into her service; but from that time down to her departure for England it was discontinued, and ^hexoas seen to aceompany Bergami to a place of Catholic worship which he himself f re-, quented, to join in the prayers of the service, and to kneel down by his side.f Such was 'her abandonment of those religious feelings and * AU that is here described by the Attorney-General in such horrifying language, as exhibited before, het Majesty, by lVlahomet,|is nothing more than the/onijango, a dance very common in the East., It was introduced into Spain by the Moors, and forms one of their most popular amusements. In Bourgoing's Travels it is thus described : — •• No sooner is it begun at a ball than every countenance becomes animated ; and even those who, by their age and prbfessioiii are most obliged to gravity, have much difficulty in preventing themselves from joining in the cadence. It. is related on this subject, that the Court of Rome, scandalized that a country renowned for the purity of its faith should not long ago haye proscribed this profane danqe, resolved to pronounce its formal condemnation. A consistory assembled ; the prosecution of the fandango was begun according to rule, and sentence was about to be thundered against itj when one of the judges judiciously observed, that a criminal ought not ta be condemned wiihut being heard. The observation had weight wilh the assembjj'. Two Spaniards were brought before it, and, to the sound of instruments, displayjed all the graces of the fandango. Tbe aevetily of the judges was not proof against the exhibition ; their austere countenances begaa to relax: they rose from their seats, and their arms and their legs soon found their former suppleness. The consistory-hall was changed into a dancing-room, and the fandango was acquitted. , The/oiidango is different, according to the places in which it is practised. It j» frequently called for at the theatres, and generally closes private balls." So much for Mahi- met'» " otroctoui'''" and "detestable" exhibition. t Monstrous aposlacy, truly ! but not more sb than a notorious Unitariari defending. Chris tianity,. «« by law established, against the attacks of a DetX. . ' / TBIAL OF THE QUEEN. 9? rites whicb ought to be observed by all persons under all circumstances. She demeaned herself to accompany this mun, which was an act degrading and disgusting in itself; but he Could not help thinking it a strong corroboration and confirmation of nil the other facts which he had detailed; and it must satisfy their Lordships that this disgraceful and illicit intercourse did take place between Bergami .and her JMajesly, as it had been .stated to them Lee their Lordships look at the general nature of the case, and, be sides this, let them look at some of those strong facts which more especially confirmed the charge. This Bergami was a man in the greatest poverty: in October, 1814, he was received into her Majesty's service, and in the short course of five or six months he was not only in habits, of the greatest familiarity with her, but his whole family surrounded her. Their Lordships would allow him to call their attention to the state of her Majesty's establishment while settled -at Pesaro. There was Bergami himself, her grand chamberlain ; his mother, who did not appear to have Jield any particular situation in her household ; his brother Lewis, who, from the humble station of a courier, had been promoted to be her equerry; the Countess of Oldi, (the sister,) who was only maid of honour; Frances Bergami, their cousin, who was dignified with the title of Director of the Palace ; Faustina, the sister; Martin, a page ; Frances, a relation; aud the house-steward, besides the Piccaroon. So that their Lordships would see that there were ten, as he might say, of this family retained in her service. And, to account for the striking. fact of their being advanced in this way in favoiirs and ho nours, what was to be said ? How was it to be accounted for ? It might well be said, indeed, in answer to that question, " Don't from these facts alone infer guilt; don't from these alone infer adulterous intercouse ! " Why, ,no, he would not ; if he did infer it from these alone, he should be betraying that duty which they had imposed upon him, and which he was pledged to perform. But, when in addition to these circumstances, their Lordships found that all these disgraceful familiarities continued between them, that, at place after place, the same arrangement was observed for a free intercourse between their rooms and between them, (and he alluded more particularly to the scene in the tent on hoard of the polacre,) when they looked at what occurred at Charnitz, at Carlsruhe, and other places ; surely these facts, of themselves, would be sufficient ; but when coupled with others, if they should be satisfactorily proved, they could not leave the slightest doubt of the disgraceful conduct charged in the preamble,, and of the shameful and wicked intercourse which took place between Count Berga mi and her Majest}-. But their Lordships had heard it said al their bar, and said with a sort of triumph by his learned friends ; " What witnessess have you? How is all this to be proved ? Will, you attempt to prove it ? Have you any competent witnesses?" And their Lordships had heard a great deal of undeserved slander heaped on foreign witnesses. They had heard his learned friends sayj on the other hand, when speaking of their client, " Oh ! we expect persons of high rank, and character, and consequence in the country where the circumstances are stated to havd taken place." Now let their Lordships look ai the case. It did not admit of such witnesses : it was when her Majesty was in retirement and surrounded only by her servants that those facts took place. Could there be any witnesses of facts like thesis but those vfhose avocations and humble employments gave them opportunities of .seeing_the conduct of the parties from time to time and of examining the beds and bed rooms ? In cases of criminal conversation, they never had, -at -least a was very frequently quite im^possible and impracticable to have, any othec 10 66 TRIAL OF THE QU^EN. evidence but that of servants, or others whose duly called them to difrerehll! pails of the house. But it was said, and with soiheth'ing like an air of Ex ultation, " Aye, BUT these ARE FOREIGN witnesses."* Foreign wit nesses ! Let them look at her Majesty's conduct ; why was it that hdr'M^- jesty was abandoned by all her other suite, by all' her English servants f Why, but that, after her arrival from Milan, she seemed anxious to fbrgW that she was, or should be— an Englishwoman. Could she complai'tj Of those foreign witnesses when she had shown by her conduct what she thought of Italian servants -what she thought of this man, her favoured Bergami ? Should il be said. Don't hear foreign witnesses, there is the strongest objec tion to them, they are not to be believed. But he would ask them what did this hold out to the public ? Was it not to say, " Go abroad. Commit what crime you please, carry on what conduct you please, hovvever flagitious, yod never can be convicted in an English court of justice. , And why ? Because the fact can only be proved by ^)reign witnesses, and they, we tell yoti vefoid we hear them, are branded with infamy. They are nlaiked for discredit; therefore, go abroad, abandon yourselves to the most dissolute profligacy you please; it can never be proved in a court of this country, for foreigri witness are unworthy of belief." Would their Lordships listen to such ati argument as this? Let them pride themselves on the superiority of the English character, but let them not by a sweeping condemnatioh declare that all foreigners were unworthy of credit. It was her Majesfy Who had berself to thank, if the facts could only be proved by Italian witnfesses. She had taken into her household Italian servants, and surely vvould not treat With such disgrace the person highest in her confidence. If their Lordships condemnation, however, extended to Italians, it could hardly be appllied to foreigners of all countries and descriptions. He was satisfied notWilhs'tandiftg the adroit manner in which the case had been put by his learned friends, Who presumed that these witnesses would exercise their facility bf lotomotionj and take the air at their ease, the observation would makfe n6 irripfessioli' Oti their Lordships' minds. Would to God those witnesses cotild do so : but he would recal to their Lordships' remembrance circumstances Which had hap pened, and ask whether the witnesses could feel that security vdhich they ought'to enjoy. It was disgraceful to the country that stich cirCumstahfctt had taken place; but he trusted that the public mind would soon resuihe its former calmness, and the popular clamour subside. Upon thei , cir cumstances of the case it was hardly necessary for him to add, their Loid- ships were to decide under a sacred obligation. It had befen said that fhfe Witnesses, being foreigners, were the less worthy of belief, ahd that theit testimony ought to be received with suspicion and distrust : but the Condtjct 6f her Majesty, and the nature of the case, made feuch evidence iridiSpen^abTei Their Lordships wobld .decide hjaon its value, aiid, he doubted not, cillhly and firmly pronounce their judgement. He shovlld now pt'oceed fo ckU his Witnesses. * Still worse ; they are Italian witness^. Lord NelsBn used to Say , that he wobld riot believe an Italian upon his oath. He said this upon a cbiirt-iiihTiial #here the lif^ et i Mh depended.on Italian evidence. The man was acquitted — the Italian disgtacVd.. In a fb* years the Italian was prosecuted for an offence at Minorca. He was sentenced tq ^ie; loii Nelson questioned him as to the irii'tli 6h the preceding trial. " I Sfeirrfj" said the Italian, •• fo A parcel of lies, but I swiire u'pthi 'ah Es'Gitsa I^kA^E'A-Bdok !" Thg horror of Idia Kelson Was great ; but he had Spaibit;- The ihan waS hf^i-i^sn; tthd bf^iiTS the Mfnii tiaiie now ^s one of the Queen's accusers. > , > TBIAL OF THE QUEEN. , 67 A considerable pause now ensued. Lord Erskine observed, that it might be expedient to come immediately to an understanding, with regard to the situation of the witnesses, after they should have delivered their testimony. It might be material to the ends of justice that they should be placed in a station of security, and be forthcoming, if, on a subsequent occasion, their presence should be found necessary. The Lord Chancellor &a\d, that in accordance with the usual course of their proceedings, the witnesses might be questioned before their departure from the House as to wh ere they wer e about lo go. He agreed that they ought to be kept within call, and remain in attendance till the end of ihe cause; and therefore now moved, that the witnesses do attend from day to day till further orders, This motion was immediately carried without opposition. Lord King expressed a wish that the House should distinctly understand in what situation the witnesses would bo placed, and that it should be known whether, on their coming to that bar, they would be liable upon the evidence which they gave to an indictment for perjury. Their Lordships were now proceeding in a legislative capacity, but the King's Attorney-General was employed to conduct the case brought under their consideration. This, it appeared, was done upon an order of the House itself. Undoubtedly their. Lordships might commit a witness for falsehood or prevarication, for the term of their own sitting ; but as itwas not improbable that they might have to revise parts of this proceeding, it was desirable to jearn whether the witnesses would be in the same predicament as in a court of record. ¦ The Lord Chancellor said, that if the Noble Lord's question were put to his experience, he co/ild make no answer; but on general principles he would state bis opinion, that the witnesses might be prosecuted at law for perjury. Lord King observed, that his doubt arose from the circumstance of their now sitting, not in their judicial, but in a legislative capacity. The Earl of Liverpool remarked, that in his apprehension what might be done in the case of an impeachment might also be done upon this occasion. Lord King was of opinion that ihis was a question of law, not of parliamen tary privilege; but it might yet be doubted whether a prosecution could be commenced without Uie special order of the House. •The Earl of LicerpooZ thought the question would be, whether the House would interfere to stop a prosecution ? Earl Grey said a few words, upon which the conversation dropped. Her Majesty at this moment entered the House, attended as usual by Lady Ann Hamilton, and took her seat in a chajir placed within the bar, about the distance of three yards from it, and which, tho.tigh not directly opposite to, enabled hex to confront, the witnesses. "The Solicitor-General then called T/teodore Majochi, who, in a very few moments, was ushered in, and placed before the bar. He is a. man of middle stature, decent appearance, and was .handsomely attired. The Queen, having .fixed her eyes.on bim, exclaimed in a piercing tone, "¦Theodore! oh, no, no!* and was immediately conducted to a private apart ment. • The eaemies of tlije Queen ihave laboured hard .to interpret this circumstance (o her Majesty's disadvantage. It is pretended that sine did not expect M^jodii .wwld give evidence agiwiurt.hei, .and she was ovetHbelraed with conscious .gttilt at iis presence. Kpthing can he moye'eixwneous. The Qu jen .knewjihat lie was one of .the priqcipjil prfwiQters of the plot; 9n4 Uie fiwt.of :hi» being a jutDess against her bad been .mentioned in tlie French papers more 68 > TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The Solicitor-General applied to their Lordships to allow the Marchese Nicolas Spinetto to be sworn as an interpreter, the witness being an Italmii, and utterly ignorant of the English language. The interpreter was then sworn. ,. i tt Mr. Brougham asked, whether he appeared by any order of the House, or at the instance of the party promoting the present bill ? He wished to ascer tain this point, because upon the answer which he received'would depend his rioht to introduce an interpreter on the part of her Majesty. The Lord Chancellor thought there could be no objection to inquiring of the interpreter himself by whom he had been engaged to offer himself to the House in that capacity. , j ¦ i Mr. Brougham then addressed the Marchese Spinetto, and asked, in wliose employment he appeared there as an interpreter ?— I received my instructions from Mr. Planta and Mr. Maule. . r^ , ,, Mt, Brougham.— f:io you mean Mr. Plantii of the Foreign-ofhce, and Mr. Maule, solicilor to the Treasury ?— I do. j ¦ • Mr. Brougham.— Th-iX, then, is quite a sufficient reason for my desiring to' have a second interpreter sworn. Though it may not, strictly speaking, be necessary at this moment, it may be more convenient to swear him immedi ately. Beneditto Cohen then took the usual oath to interpret faithfully all the evi dence which the witnesses might deliver. Mr. Brougham said he understood that the-witness at the bar did not object to the FORM OF BEING sWoRN, but he submitted to their Lordships that it might be proper to inquire whether be had undergone those preparations which were necessary in his own country before his evidence could be received in a court of justice.* The Lord Chancellor entertained no doubt that, if the witness was sworn according to the forms of this country, and was himself satisfied with that ..-mode of attestation, his evidence was upon every legal principle admissible. Theodore Majochi was then sworn, and, in answer to a question suggested by her Majesty's counsel, emphatically stated that he considered himself to be brought there to speak the truth, and nothing except the truth. than a fortnight ago. In an article, dated Vienna, July 86, it is stated : — " Many of the Irstlian witnesses against the Queen of England have been bere with Lord Stewart, Lord Castlereagh's brother. Among them is one Afa^'oc/ii, and his wife and two children. These -witnesses are well paid; Majochi has ten francs a day, his wife five, and each of hi? children ^ four, besides an allowance of 150 francs a month for that part of bis family which he left at Como, and which is paid by the English gdvernmenr." Hence it is evident tlie Queen was apprized that he would appear ; and on his entrance into the House she was seized with a kind of hysterical affection at the sight of a man who had shown such ingratitude for her liberality and kindness. * This was a very important point. From the anecdote of Lord Nelson, just mentioned, it appears the Italian did not admit tlie obligation of an oath, because he had sworn on au English Prayer-Book, In Italy the oath is administered to a witness riot by an officer of the Court but an ecclesiastic ; and the witness swears upon the cross , Perhaps it would have afforded some additional security against perjury had this mode been adopted with the Italian witnesses. The necessity of having a regard to the custom of the country appears from the following anecdote in the Times : — " A Highlander was (under the form of oath as administered in the English Courts) giving such evidence in a particular cause, as convinced every one who heard Uiim that he was giving false testimony. It was suggested Jiy the opponent counsel that'he sliould be sworn after the custom of the Highhuiders, viz. that he should hold up his right liand, and imprecate curses upon himself and all his connexions if what he was stating was not true. After this was done, the wily Scotchmen declined giving a word of the same evi dence, shrewdly observing, ' that there was a hankie of difference between blamng on a buke. .(hook) and d — ning a man's awn saul,' " TniAL OF THE QUEEN. GQ The Solicitor-G^teral proceeded to examine him after the following man ner: — Of what country are you a native ? — I was born at Stolingo. Is that in Italy ? — It is twelve miles from Lodi. Do you know Bartolomeo Bergami ? — Yes. When did you first become acquainted with him ? — In the service of Gene ral Pino. At what time did you first know him ? — It was in the year 1813 or the year 1S14. I knew him by being in the same service. (By Mr. Brougham.) — Do you understand English ?— No, not at all. In what situation was Bergami when in the service of General Pino ? — He was there as a servant, a valet de chambre. What situation did you yourself hold at that period ?— I was the postilion or rider. Do you know what was the condition of Bergami at that time in point of finances ? — He was rather poor than rich. What wages did he receive ? — Three livrcs of Milan a-day. Do you know whether he was possessed of any property besides the wages. that he received ? — No. What do you mean by no ? Do you mean that you do not know, or that , he was not possessed of any separate property ? — I do not know more than that he received 3 livres a-day. Did you leave the service of General Pino before Bergami quitted it ? — I did. Into what service did you enter ? — I went to Vienna, and was in the ser vice of the Duke of Roccomania as h\s postilion. Did you afterwards enter any service at Naples ? — Yes, inlo that of Gene ral Joachim Murat. ' Was Murat at that time King of Naples ? — He was. Did you there see Bartolomeo Bergami ?— Yes, I did. When did you see him there for the first lime ? — In June, I believe. Mn Brougham said he had objections to urge to this course of examination. He apprehended also that it was competent to him to state his objection to a question before the answer was received. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the house would be better enabled to judge of the force of any objection to a question after hearing the answer to it. The Lord-Chancellor found himself compelled to admit that the objection should be heard in the first instance, as the answer might otherwise make an ijnpression, which, if the question were over-ruled, it might bedifficiiltto remove. The Solicitor-General resumed his examination. — At what time did you meet with Bergami at Naples ? — About Christmas, 1814. In whose house ? — In the house of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. In what situation was he at that time ? — He was a courier, and it was re ported, equerry. " Can you. tell us the precise time ? — At the beginning of the year 1815. Do you recollect how long it was after you had been at Naples that you met -Bergami ? — I remember that he told me he would make me a present. Did you afterwards enter the service of the Princess ? — I did. How long after you had met with Bergami ? — About a fortnight afterwards. What was then the situation of Bergami ? — He was a lacquey, and wore a livery. At what table did he dine .?— There were two tables, and he dined at the table of the upper servants. - . 70 T'RIA^ OF THf Q.y,¥PN,' (fiy Lord Harrawiy.J. — Who were the other pei^pns who, dined ^ttha-t tab\e ? — There were,_beside Bergami, Mons. Sicard the maitre d'hotel, M. Jermiimysj and the waiting-maid of the Princess's danie d'Aonmur, who^e nanjie, as^he was an English woman, I forget. Did any other person divide the duty about the [person of the Princess,?—. Yes, M.Jenoni mus sometimes. Was that by turns ? — The upper servants performed the duty by turns. Did any one ever attend out of his turn ?-T-Jeronimus often carried in the tray for the morning's dejeune. Do you know what was the situation of the sleeping- rooms of the Princess and -of Bergami at that time ? — Yes, I recollect it well. Describe it. — The rooms of the Princess and of ^ergajixi led "to each othgr, by a corridor, in which there was a sro,all cabinet. Bergami's bed-room was situated to the left. Are we to understand that there was no space between the two rooms, ex cept what was taken up by the corridor and the cabinet that you mention i-:^. There was iiothing else ; and it was necessary to pafe through the corridor to go from one room to the other. What was there oh the other side of Bergami's bed-room ? — A .saJopri, Who usually slept in the cabinet ? — Nobody ; it was free,. Did the rest of the family. sle«p in that part of the house, or ji,t a dist^ijce } ' Their rooms were separated. JDoyou recollect any accident happenipg-to Be.rgami ?^-yes. Wtat was it, and whcr« did it Itappen f-^-It w-as a kick from a h.Ofse. When did it happen ? — When they went to the lake Ani3,no, III consequence of it was he put lo bed ? — Yes. Did you see the Princess in his room during his sickness ijrr-'y'es, I p^Vf hjr Royal Highness there on one;QCcasio» w>i.th Jer,o{>t)iniUS and pr, Holl^^Qd., >vho was dressing Bergami'iffoot. Did you carry any broth to him ? — Yes. Did you see the Princess on that occasion ?— No, I do not xei?;ie;c9b.@r. Were at»y 'directions given ; to you as to where you were '0 .sleep ^ter tj^ accident ? — Yes, I remember. Wtere was it ?— ,Ori the sofa in the cabinet, and n^^r the fire.-pljce. Was that the cabinet of which you have bisen speakipg? — It was. How long did you ,continue to sleep there 1 — Five or ^\x njghts. Did you see any body pass during any of those nights through th^ corri dor ?^ Yes, I did. Was la fire kept there at the time 1 — Yes, there was a ,6re always. Who was it whom you sa.w pass?— Her Royal Highness. Did she pass in a.direction towards Bergami's room ? — Yes, she did. How often did ithjs happen during the time you slept in the cabijjie^}'— Twice. Do you recollect at what hour it happened the first t)me?^Abo,ut h»lf- past midnight. How long did she remain in Bergami's bed-room on the first pqcasipn ?.w About 10 or 15 minutes. In what manner did she j^assi-—Very sqftiy : she came to piy be^n^J^okei, ' and passed on;* • It is shown afterwards, in evidence, that there was another way to Bergami'? room. .But the^Qi^een (if we are to believe the witness) wantonly exposed herself to deteqtiQn, for no eartMy purpose, unless it were to'take a peep at her/ait/i/iiJ Tkeodorb t TRIAL OP THE QCEEN. 71 After she had entered BergaiVii's room, did yeu hear convetsationy ot any thing else, pass bet>^oon them ? — I only beard some whispering. How long did the Princess remain the second time in Bergami's room H— About 15 or 18 minutes, more or less. Was there a garden attached to the house ?^Yes, a small ofte. Was the door of it kept locked ? — Yes. Who had the key ? — ^Bergami. Did the Princess «ver walk in that garden ?-^Yesj How long did the Princess remain at Naples ? — About a montb, or 4.0 or 50 days. Did the witness go with the Princess when she left Naples ? — Yes.' Before the Princess left Naples, and after witness entered into he* service, did any of her English attendants leave her ? — Yes^ there were some of the English who left her. Who were they ? — I can't tell all. Say first who were the gentlemen that left the Princess ?^-There was Monsieur Sicard, the maitre ihotel, and Captain Hesse. What was Captain Hesse? — I don't know? but believe he was called Sti equerry. Do you remember the other names of those who left?— ^No; witjiess ^an't remember. Was the name of Gell among them ? — I believe it was. Was he the chamberlain? — I don't know : he \<'ore two Small mustachios. (A laugh.) Was a gentleman named Captain Keppel Graven among the English wbo then left the Princess ? — I don't remember; bull think there was such an English name whojeft the suite of the Princess. Did any of the EngKsh gentlemen in attendance upon the Princess Ifeftve • her'at Naples? — Yes; but I can't recollect their names. Were there any ladies who left the Princess? — Yes; but I don't recollect the names.. Did any of them quit the service of the Printfess ? — Yes ; htlt I f»rget the names. There was one who went away that was a small lady. Do you recollect Lady Eh2abeth Forbes ?— No. Were you at Rome ? — Yes. Where did you go from Rome .''—To Civita Vecchia. Did you embafk there in airy vessel with the Princess ?^— Yes> we did j we ehibarked on board the Clorinde. , To what plate did yon go frbtn Civita Vecchia f-^To iefhwH) to pAsI a little time thferei • Did any of the English attendants leave you at Leghorn t^\ don't r«Bet»berw Had you a chdmberkin ?— There was a ehdmberlain; «l. {all man; btit I don't know his name. * * ' Did any of the Qaden's attendants leave h^r at Leghorn ?=-*! d«n't remeiUller. Where next did you go ? — To Genoa. |, Who accbmpanied or met yen there ?-^There was a C^aia Pawt)afll« 4nd Lady Charlotte Gamitbell : I think she Was a tall^ ratherfii fat lady, «hi hitd two daughters. How lofig did she "itsefp with the Prihcess ?-^It ftight be abeut 14, m 15 fliys. Where did the Princess reside at Gclit»& f=a-Itl a pttlace tmt the W»3 te Rome. Did ier^Ami slfet^i in that palate f-^^YW* 72 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Where was his room situated ? — Near the Princess's. Was there a room between the Princess's chamber and Bergatni's ?~"Yes. Did any body occupy it ? — No ; it was a luggage-room, in which nobody slept. ., Was that the only place between the Princess's room and Bergami s ?— Yes. Might you, or might you not, then, pass directly from the one room into the other, that is, from the Princess's chamber into Bergami's ?— Yes. When you were at Genoa, where did Bergami breakfast ? — Sometimes in a small room at the top of the grand saloon. Did he breakfast alone, or with any body ?— He and the Princess breakfasted together. For what were you hired ?— As a servant. Were you hired to wait upon Bergami, or on the Princess f— I was hired; not particularly to attend him, but to be at the service of her Royal Highness^ Did you wait upon her Royal Highness, or on Bergami in particular, or on both ?— On both. Was any other person in the habit of breakfasting with Bergami and the Princess ? — I saw nobody else. Do you remember any thing particular occurring one night ? — No. Do you remember one night a courier coming from Milan ? — I do not remember. Do you remember any night knocking at a late hour at the door of Ber-- gami's chamber, to try and wake him for any particular purpose.? — Yes, I do. • On whal occasion was it, or for what purpose ?— -It was when some persons came to call upon him, and say that people had arrived in the house late. Do you recollect at what hour of the night this happened ? — I think, it was about half past one o'clock in the night. t)id Bergami answer the witness's knocking at the door ? — No. Did you knock so loud as that, in your judgement, he must have heard you, had he been there ? — I think, had he been there, he ought and must have heard me. , Was the Princess in the habit of going Or riding out? — ^Yes; she did-ride out sometimes. In what manner did she ride out ? — Sometimes in company. Did Bergami ride in her company ?' — Yes, he did. ¦ Have you seen them ride out together ? — I have. Did you at any lime observe any thing in particular pass between the Prin cess and Bergami on such occasions, when they rode olit, together ? — Yes; lie put his hands around^her waist to lift her upon the ass she rode. Any thing else ? — Yes ; he held her hand while she rode, as if to prevent her Royal Highness from falling. , Was Bergami's manner like that of the other servants in the house ; or did he appear different from them ? — Yes ; he was different^ ' . Did he seem to have more authority ? — Yes ; he bad more authority than the other servants. , , Between bim and the Princess was there any apparent distance, like that to wards the other servants ; or was there an apparent familiarity between them f — There was rather an intimacy. .' Did Bergami continue to occupy the same room during their whole residence at Genoa ?-^Witnes5 did not remember. , , To what place did you proceed on leaving Genoa ? — To Milan. Where did the Princess's establishtnent first reside at Milan ?-"At Casa Car- cana, Porta Nuova. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 73 At what house ? — At a house belonging to the family of Boromeo. Do you recollect, before the Princess left Genoa, whether any of the rela tions of Bergami were taken into her Royal Highness's service ? — Yes ; I re member some. What name? — One was a female ; Faustina. Was she married or single? — I do not know whether she was single or mar ried ; she came to the house without a husband. Was there a child brought into the house ? —Yes. What was the child's name? — Victorine. About what age did the child appear.' — About 3 years old when she came. Did the mother of the child come with her ? — No. Did any body else come of the Bergami family ? — Yes, Lewis Bergami. How were the rooms in the house furnished when they came ?— In the usual way. How was Bergami's room situated as to the Princess's? — The rooms were se parated by a wall. How were the doors of the two rooms placed as lo each other. ?-^At first there was an ante-room, on the right, left for Mr. William ; and Bergami's was the room at the near side, next the Princess's. Was there a door or a wall separating Bergami's from the Princess's room, or a stair-case ? — Yes, there was a landing-place, whicb had a doot opening into it. Where was this landing-place ? — Between both rooms. IJid the door of each open into it ? — Yes, each door of the Princess's apart ment and of Bergami's opened into it. The distance between the doors was about two braccie, or about seven or eight feet. Mr. Brougham bere observed, that he trusted the Solicitor-General would take care that no other witness remained present while a witness was under examination. This was the -practice in all other Courts, and he had no doubt, from its propriety, would be adopted by their Lordships. The Solicitor-General could have no possible objection to the removal and separation of witnesses. He was not aware that any witness for the bill was present, except the one under examination. The Lard Chancellor said the rule of course embraced all the witnesses, both for and against, always of course excepting those whose duty it was to remain piesent. , The Solicitor-General said, that his only wish was to have the practice respecting witnesses observed here as in other Courts. He wished it to be strictly general. He put it, therefore, not alone in point of strict practice, but in candour to his learned friend (Mr. Brougham), to take care that his witnesses should be excluded. Mr. Brougham replied, most undoubtedly; he had no other wish than that the exclusion should be strictly general. All whom he knew he intended to call, he wished should be out of the house-: of course he could not mean that the prohibition should extend to any of those whose duty it was to remain. There might be one or two whose duty it was to remain, that he might yet have hearafter to call. The Solicitor-General commented on the expression used by his learned friend, " all whom he knew he intended to call." He submitted to his candour whether all should not remain out that there appeared the smallest probability of his calling. 11 \ 74 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 1 Mr. Brtmgham assured bis learned friend that he did nOt mean to fepdafc equivocfdly ; he meant to deal fairly and candidly, and His learned frifehd might safely leave the matter to his candour, as he had appealed to it. Of course it was quite impossible for him to know, at this momentj what wit nesses it might be necessary for him to call. He could riot tel-l, until his learned friend's case was^ closed, whether he should call any witnesses or ri^t, Jf he only heard such a witness as the present called, he certainly should not d^lf any. (A laugh.) He again assured his learned friend that he mBan't lo Ex clude his witnesses until the time arrived for their examination. The examination of the witness was resumed by the Sdlicitor-GeVieral. ^ Were the stair-case and landing-place you allude to piivate, or did ariy other door open inlo tljem ? — The stair-case and landing-place were private; the stair-case led inl« a small apartment, which was unfrequented. Did any body sleep in that small apartment ? — Yes ; sometimes the brother of Bergami. Were you in the -habit of waiting upon the Princess at breakfast ? — Yes; sometimes. Did any others so attend ? — Yos. What others ? — Sometimes Lewis Bergami, and occasionally a courier named Cameron. During the period of the general residence of the Princess at Milan, did s/he take a journey to Venice? — Yes. Before she went had Lady Charlotte Campbell joined her ? — I think not. Where did she join her Royal Highness with her daughters ?^I think at Genoa. Do you know did Lady Charlotte Campbell go from Genoa to Milan ih the same- carriage with the Princess ? — I do not remember. Did Lady Charlotte stay long with her Royal Highness ? — ^No. Do you remember when she quitted ? — I think about five or si.x da\s before , the Princess set out for Venice. Did. Lady Charlotte go away with her daughters ? — I belieye she did, for the daughters were not seen in the house after she went away. Did the English Lady of honour remain in the suite of the Princess afler Lady Charlotte left ? — 1 recollect none. » Did a persoYi called the CounleSs of Oldi join the Princess ?— She did. ^Vhen ? — About two or three days after Lady Charlotte Campbell left. Do you know whether she was any relation of Bergami's ? — It was report ed in the house she was his sister. How ¦was that known ? — It was spoken of. Did witness himself know it? — Yes. Was it at first generally known through the household ? — Yes; soon after she came. t- How soun after ? — About the time when she was observed to have a place at the Princess's table with (he family. When you arrived at Venice where did you go? — To the Great Britain Holeli^ fhey afterwards went to the house next by. How were the bed-rooms occupied by the Princess and by Bergami situate in that house ? — They were next one another. Was there any division between them? — Yes^ o'nlt a grand salOoK. ( A laugh;) Did both doors open into that salobll ?-^YeS, they did. Did witness ever see the Princess walk out with Bergami ? — Yes. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 75 Where i — Both at Milan and Venice. In what manner did you see them walk out together?— Arm by arm, or arm in arm, they walked -out at Milan and Venice. Was this by dliy or by night ? — .-M night. At what .time of the night; at what hour? — Alter nine o'clock in the evening; between nine and ten o'clock. Did you ever see Bergami dine at table with the Princess ? — Yes, several times. Where did you first observe this?— At Genoa. Did he continue to dine with the Princess, after the first lime you saw him at dinner with her ? — Always, as far as I can recollect. How used they to sit at table? Where did the Princess sit, and whpre did Jiergami ? — Sometimes in one place, and sometimes in anothHt. Did her Royal Highness sit at the head of the table ? — Sometimes she did, .and Bergami sat often on her right and often on her left, and- sometimes op posite to her. Was the Princess more than once at Genoa while you were with her ? I don't remember. Do you not lemember when you embarked at Genoa ? Mr. >B;'Oi/g^am objected to this question. He could not think- their Lord ships would permit bis learned friend to make his own witness contradict himsdf. If the answer were given in one way, it might contradict the preceding answer given by the witness. He must object to this way of pur suing au examination. Itwas, in fact, to put leading questions. Ths Solicit ar-Geueral disclaimed any intention of putting what could with propriety be called a leading question. -^ The Lord. C4ffl»ce?/ar.— What is the question you mean to put ? The Sdlicitor-GeneroL- — I shall put it in ,this way, my Lord — whether the witness after he left Genoa ever returned there to embark for Venice? Lord Erskine sa.\A, that though he tho'ught a counsel might put one question to a witness which would have the effecf of contradicting a preceding answer given by that witness, yet that such a question ought not, nor need not, be put in a leading shape. The question was put to the witness, who answered — I did embark from Genoa. Do you mean, then, that this familiarity between the Princess and Ber gami took place the first or the second time you were at Genoa? — I saw it the first time. Where did you go from -Borameo-house, al Milan ? — To the Lake of Como, near Milan. How long did you remain there at the time you allude to ? — About a month and a half. Where were the bed-rooms of Bergami and the Princess, and those of the Other servants ? — The bed-rooms of the Princess and Bergami were one at one side, and the other at the opposite side of a cabinet. There, was only a small passage whidh separated them. Was any part of your duly to assist in making Bergam-fs bed ?— Yes', it was ; -I made the bed. Did you ever remark that it had not been slept upon ? — I did. The other servants lived separate in another part of the house ? — They did. Did you assist in making the beds of the Princess and Bergami ? — I did.- 76 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Did you observe thateithei' of the beds bad the appearance of having been slept in by two persons* — They had not that appearance always. Could you tell, from your observations of th6 beds, whether or not Ber- gElmi had alwiays slep in his or elsewhere ? — It appeared as if he had not always slept in it. Did that happen often at the Villa Villani ? — Yes. Do you remember the Princess, at Villa Villani, wearing a blue silk bed gown, lined with red ? — I remember it. After you saw the Princess wear the blue silk gown, did you see Bergami wear it ? — Yes. Often ? — He always had it on. In the presence of the Princess ? — Yes. When you say always, do you mean that he wore it always in the morning, or during the whole day ? — Every morning when he made his toilette. At what time did the Princess usually rise in the morning ?— At half-past ten, eleven, or half-past eleven. When she rose did she'usually ring for her servants, or call ? — Sometimes he called, and sometimes rang; but for the most part called. Did Bergami rise at the same time, or before, or after the Princess ? — Sometimes he got up at the same time ; sometimes a quarter of an, hour later. Where did the Princess go to from Villa Villani ?— To Villa d'Este.' How long had she stayed at Villa Villani before she went to Villa d'Este ? — Forty-five or fifty days. Do you happen to reccollect the relative situations of the bed-roOms of the Princess and Bergami at Villa d'Este ? — I do not remember, because ihey were changed anew. When were they changed ?-:-When they undertook the Voyage to Egypt. In what vessel did they embark at (5enoa ?— In a man-of-war, the' Levi athan. Where did they go to in the Leviathan ? — To Porto Ferrajo. Where did they gO to next ? — ^To Palermo. Did the Princess go to court at Palermo ? — Yes. By whom was she accompanied ? — 1 do not remember.* How long did she stay at Palermo ? — Twenty or twenty-five days ; but I do not remember. Whenei did you to from Palermo ? — ^To Messina. Did the Princess take a house in Messina, or near Messina ? — Near Messina. Do you know the relative situations of the bed-rooms at Messina ? — Yes. , Were they near each other ? — Between the room of the Princess and that of Bergami, there was a room in which the dame d'honneur slept. Who was that dame d'honneur ? — A sister of Bergami. Did the other persons of the suite sleep in that part of the house, or in another ? — In another. You have said that the only room between that of the Princess and Bergami was slept in by the Countess Oldi : was there a communication . through that room between the apartment of the Princess and that of Bergami ? — Yes,- it was necessary to pass through the room of the dame d'honneur. Then am I to understand that through the room of the dame d'hoftneur there was a comm-unication between ihe rooms of Bergami and the Princess ? —Yes. Do you recollect Bergami breakfasting or eating with the Princess at Mes sina ?— Yes, I do. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN; 77 Where was tlmt ? in what room ? — Beyond the room where her Royal Highness slept there was a cabinet which led into a garden, and in that cabinet they breakfasted. Did they breakfast alone, or was any other person with them ? — Alone. Do you remember Bergami, at Messina, asking leave of the Princess to go to make some purchases ? — I do. Did the Princess give him leave ?^Yes. Describe what took place between them when he parted from her for that purpose.— I saw Bergami when the Queen w^ going to lake her breakfast ; and he said, " Willyour Royal Highness permit me to go to Messina to make some purchases ? " and, having obtained leave, gave a kiss to her lips, (bocca.) How long did the Princess remain at Messina ? — Twenty-five or twenty- eight days, but I cannot say precisely. To what place did she proceeed from Messina ? — To Syracuse. Did she go by sea, or by land ? — By sea. At Syracuse did she lodge in the town, or in the neighbourhood ? — In the neighbourhood ; out of the town. Can you describe the relative situation of the bed rooms of the Princess and of Bergami at that house ? Did the Princess continue to live in the same house she originally took at Syracuse ? — In the same. Was it near the pier or mole ? — About a gunshot from it. Describe the relative situation of the bed rooms at that house. Mention whether there was a private staircase communicating from one room to another ? — There was. Did that staircase lead immediately from one room into the other ? — Yes. Was there another entrance into the bedroom of the JPrincess, for the use of persons waiting upon her? — There was, from the great cha.Tiber where they dined. Do you remember seeing Bergami go into the room of the Princess without bfeing entirely dressed, in any house 'before they went to Syracuse ? — Oh, yes. Do you remembeM»here it was ?-^If I do not mistake, it was in the Villa Villani. » What part ofhis dress had he on ?— That morning gown with stockings and drawers (cangianti.) Where did the Princess go to from Syracuse ? — To Catania. Can you describe the relative situation of the bedrooms of the Princess and Bergami at Catania ? were they near each other, or distant ? — ^They were separated by a yard or court, smaller than this house. Was,there any other separation between them but this court ? — Nothing else. Could any other person, after they were in bed, get into that court ? — No ; because the door was locked. Do you remember whether Bergami was taken ill at Catania ?— He was. Was it necessary that his bed should be warmed ?-«-Yes. Did you warm the bed yourself? — Yes. Did. you' see the Princess on that occasion ? — Yes. Was she in the room before you went there, or did she eome in afterwards ? — I was ip the room when she came. How was Bergam sitting ? — Upon a bench, or sort of stool, while I was making the bed. 78 TRIAL OF THE QUEEiSr. Were any directions given by the Princess as to the mode of warming the Md?— Yss. What did she say ?— She told me to warm the bed and make it cleanand nide. Did Bergami takp any medicine ? — Yes. Who mixed it for him ? — I do not remember. How long did the Princess remain in the room ?,—¦ While the 'bed was warming. Whjle Bergami was sitting at the side of the bed, in the manner described, >ya5 he entirely dresjed, or partly undressed? — Only dressed in part. What bad he on, and ^vhat off? — He had on the mon^Pig gown ; but I do mutt remember v^at else. * How long did the Princess remain at Cata,nia ? — Aboiit a moath and a half. To what place did she next go ? — To Augusta. By land or sea ? — ^^By sea. Describe the situation of the bed-rooms. — ^There was a small yard or co^urt into which both the looms led, and you passed tbro,ugh.this court from one rooip to tihe other. After thej' were in bed, could any person get into that court ?-T-Not until they got up in the morning. ^ At Augustadid they embark in any vessel?-^ Yes,.-on hoard a polacre. Was that an Italian vessel ?— A Neapolitan polacre, as they said. Where did you first go to in it ? — To Tunis. Did Bergami receive any title at Catania or Augusta ? — At Catania. Was he ever called his Excellency ? — I remember it. sWas that at Catania ? — Yes. Did he wear any decoration ? — That of the order of Knighthood of M^ta. Whilfe in Sicily did he receive any other title? -Was he called Baron ?— I remember he -was called Baron Francina. Did he receive that title first in Sicily ? — Yes. Where did Bergami sleep on iboard the polacre ?— In ^e cabin where they dined. ^ Was the cabin of the Princess adjoining that cabin ? — It was near it. Did any other person sleep in the roorh where they dined? — I do not remember. When the Princess arrived at Tunis, where did she reside ? — :At the.Eng- ligh Consijl's. Did she reside there during the whole time she .w.asat Tunis? — She changed her lodging. Where did she go afterwards ? — To the palace of the Bey. Do you remember the-relative situation of the bed-roojms there ? were they near each other ?. — No : at a little distance. What 'Separated them-? — (First, there was a little room — a small corridor, and then a large room in which nobody slept, and that large room led into .the bed-room of the Princess. , Did any body sleep in the small intermediate room ? — It was only used-fts a room of passage. Did the rest of the -suite sleep in that part of -the building?— All-in ano ther part. The .Princess afterwards went from Tiinis to Constantinople, arid frpn^ thence to Scala Nuova f — Yes. . TRIAI* OF THE QUEBJJ.. 71^. Where did she lodge at Scala Nuova f--They did not) stop there, bdtiv«nt . to the Grotto of the Seven Sleeping Men. At what distance ?— 'Half a day's journey. -Do you remeniber the place where there was a Turkish coffee-house ? Yes, a Cafe Turque. Where was that ? — Before you arrive at the Grotto of the Seven Sleepers. Did the suite of the Princess take up their residence at that Gaf6 ? — During the night. Do you remember a vestibule of a small church near that spot, s'urrounded by a wall ? — I remember that too well. Where did the Princess sleep on the first night on^arriving at that place ? Under a tent, made of the boughs of trees. Do you remember being sent for lo that vestibule enclosed by a wall ?— -Ye.s. Was the Princess there at that time ? — Yes. And Bergami also ? — He was present also. Was no other person present ? — No one else-. Was the vestibule surrounded by a wall ? — It was surrounded by walls. Was the Princess's travelling bed carried thither? — I carried it myself. By whose direction ? — Both Bergami and the Princess. Did Bergami and the Princess remain there ? — Yes. Had you prepared the dinner in any other place ? — I had carried it to the coffee-house, and the Princess and Bergami ordered me to c.irry the dinner to the vestibule surrounded by a wall. Did they dine there by themselves ? — Alone. Where was the Princess sitting? — On a bed. Where was Bergami sitting ? — On the ground, at the feet of her R^Jfeil Highness. Did, you wait upon her? — Yes. After dinner, did they remain there ? — Yes. Was any' other person with them ? — Non-c. Did the bed remain there ? -^Yes, How long did they remain together in that place ?->—. IIow long did you remain in Italy after you left Pesaro ? — I cannot tell. I dj not ask you to say to a certainly, but as nearly as you can. — I can not tell. Was it three or four months ? — I do not remember. Do you remember going wilh the Princess to Pavia ? — Yes. At what inn did you stop ? — I do not remembei- the name of the inn, but it was the one on the right hand as you enter the town,. , Do you remember while at Naples the circumstance of Bergami being out on horseback one dfiy, and the Princess as-king for him ? — L remember it too P'jf/;— ;(after a pause thp interpreter added)— or very \\ef[. The witness used the word " iruppo ;" and lliu aniwcr having excited 84 TRIAL OF -THE QUEEN. some observation within the bar, the interpreter observed that it might be . taken as " too well," or " very well." The'literal meaning was " too much ;" ' but that interpretation had been objected^to yesterday; he considered the witness to mean very well. Mr. Brougham.^^l make no objection to the interpretation. During the absence of Bergami on horseback, did the Princess "ask for him? —She did. The Solicitor-General wished here to remind their Lordships, that the wit ness had stated that he had beem^'ith the Queen" before at Naples for about a month, in the year 1814. ' ' ' " Did the witness, on Bergami's return, communicate to him that the Princess wanted him ? — I did. JVas she at that time in her bed-room ? — I -do not know, because I was below' -in the court. In consequence of the coiiimunication made by the witness, did Bergami go to the Princess in her bed-room ? ' Mr. Brougliam objected to this mode of examination. The witness had not. said where the Queen was, and he put a question which assumed that she was in her bed-room. -' - ' The Lord Chancellor considered the question irregular. The witness ought to be asked, To whal place did Bergami go ? The Solicitor-General — Let him ihen be asked where Bergami went to. Mr. Brougham interrupted the witness in the answer'he was giving, by ob serving that he was going on to relate a conversation which had passed be tween himself and Bergami. ' TheSolwitor-General submitted that the conversation would be evidence if it related to an act done by her Majesty. Lord Erskine made some observations, which were not distinctly heard. We understood hira lo say that the conversation would not be good evidence if held in the absence of her jM?ijesty. ^' The Lord Chancellor (as we understood) said that a conversation in the. ab sence of a third person might be evidence, if connected with some act of that ^lerson. The Solicitor-General said that of the nature of this conversation he was no way apprized ; but he would ask the witness where Bergami went after he was informed that the Princess wanted him ? — Into his oyvn room. What did he do on going inlo it .'^^He shut up'lhe door," Do you mean that he mferely closed the door, or that he fastened or locked it? — He locked it. - Did he remain there long ? — About three quarters of an hour, or an hour._ Did you see the Princess below during this time ? — I did not. Did the new arrangement of the bed-rooms which was made at Villa d'Este take place during the journey in Greece? — Yesrit ha-ppened then. Do you know what was the relative situation of the rooms after the Prin cess retumed from Greece, and the change had'taken place ? — 1 do. Do you recollect whether the rooms of Bergami and the Princess were near ' and had a direct communicafion wilh each o,iher ?-^l do recollect they were. Were the apartments of the rest of the household at a distance ? — They were more apart. Do you recollect whether, on the doo^ of Bergami's room being closed, all communication was interrupted between that part of the house where the rest of the Princess's suite slept and the apartments of Bergami and the Princess ? TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 85 —Yes, when his door was locked nobody else could go into the Princess'* apartment. Do you recollect an alteration having been formed in the wall of the apart ment ? — I do not remember. Was there a theatre at Villa d'Este ?— Yes. Did the Princess appear on that theatre? — Yts. Did she act in the same piece with Bergami ?'^I have seen Bergami and the Princess there together, but I never remained during the whole performance. Was the Princess while she lived at Villa d'Este usually visited by persons of distinction in that neighbourhood ? — I do not remenjber. Do you remember a person of the name of Majoretto or Mahomet, being in the service vf the Princess ?— Yes. What countryman was he ? — He was from Jaffa. Did he come on board the Princess's vessel at Jaffa ? — Yes. Did he live at Villa d'Este ?— Yes. Tell us any exhibitions he was in the habit of making, always observing not to mention any except those at which the Princess was present. Mr. Brougham thought his learned friend ought to put his question in a more specific form. It would be necessary, in the first place, to bring the Queen and this man together. The Solicitor-General would endeavour to obviate the objection. Do you remember any time, when the Princess was present, at which Mahomet made any exhibition ?— Yes, he performed a Giuoco. It was here asked what was meant by a Giuoco, and the interpreter stated, that it was a generic term, which comprehended all kinds of plays, games, and tricks. What tricks was he in the habit of playing ? Mr. Brougham observed that they had nothing to do with the habits of Mahomet, it was only what was done when the Princess was present that could bemadethesubject of inquiry. Hemust, therefore, object lo the question. The Solicitor-General. — Will the witness describe the nature of the Giuoco to which he has alluded, at which the Princess was present? Here the witness moved his body up and down wilh a sort of dancing mo tion, occasionally extending his arms and snapping his fingers, as if using'cas- tanets in a fandango, and exclaiming "vima dima,". or some such words. The interpreter being asked what this was, said it was a species of dance very commonly performed in the East, and' Mr. Brougham interrupted the interpreter, observing that his account was unnecessary. Could he explain the words " vima dima f" — ^The interpreter, could not. The Solicitor-General. — Was any thing done by Mahomet wilh any part of his dress ?— ^Yes, with his great brachese, or pantaloons. Did he make any use of his linen, or of his pantaloons ? — Yes. What use did he make of them ? — Here the witness made several movements. Did he either before or during the time of these motions, make any arrange ment ofhis pantaloons, or do any thing with his linen,?— I do not know, I will ask you then to describe the Giuoco from beginning to end. Here the witness pulled up his Irowsers, and repeated his imitation of the Giuoco of Mahomet as hpfore. The interpreter «aid their Lordships saw the motion the witness inf\de, and could judge of it as well as he. 13 8S TKIAL OF THE QUEENj Mfi B,r^kaiti said that the ihotiori the man wias making might be described iti one sn6rt word-^A courtsey. Some peers called out— JVo .' No ! ' The ^di&tdr-General Wished the witness to describe exa'etly the manner in which the trowsers of Maliomet were prepared for this trick : he therefore asked, did he do any thing to his trowsers with his hands either before he began or when going on with the Giuoeo ? — I did not see him do any thing. Was the position of his trbwsers the Same as usual ? — Always. Do you remember this Giudcd being performed more than once in the pre- sBHce of the Princess ? — Yes, more than once. Was Bergami present as well as the Princess ? — He was. Aftir you went to Milap; and entered into the service of the Marquis, where did you go ? — To Germany. When at the Villa d'Este did you see the Princess and Bergami alone on the Lake of Como ? — Yes. The witness has said, that he has seen the Princess and Bergami together, and unaccompanied, on the Lake of Como. Has he often seen them so f — Yes, many times. The Solicitor-General bere said^-^My Lords, these are all the questions I have at the present moment to ask this witness. Mr. Brougham, — I tiust, my Lords, I shall now be permitted according to the usual coulscj to enter upon the cross-examination of this witness. 1 am ready to do so. (Cries from the peers of " Go on,") Cross-eicahiikid by Mr. Brougham. Wheii the learned gentleman was about to commence, the Marches.e l»Jico- las Spinetto was about to retire, and make way for the second interpreief, Beneditto Cohen ; but Mr. Brbugham said there was no necessity vvhatfever; he was quiet siatisfied with the interpretation of the Marchese, who accord ingly continued to interpret, but i-eraoved lo the left of the witness, so as that the latter should stand exactly next th© learned counsel. Yoii have told us you left General Pino's service^> was it not on account of killing a horse ?-^No. You never killed a horse then at all ? — Never. You never told any one you had ?— ^Never. While Mr. Bnughamr\Ka% in the act of putting this question, some sigrlJ- ficatioii, by whisper or gesture, was made by some of their Lordships, which seemed to indicate disapprobation-. Mr. Bro'ughaiA appealed to their Lordships, l TKIAL OF THE QUEEN, 87 Were they in or out of livery J-r-During every day they did not weftt liveries ; but at dinner sometimes they wore uniforms. The interpreter hare observed that uniform was the real tran»)a»ajt upon her Royal Highness ?-R-Yes, at table. Did they at breakfast ? — No. Did the upper servants, including the couriers, do so as a part of ikm duty ? — Yes, they did. Did he know Icronimus ? — Yes, very well. Did he know Cameron?— Yes, they were couriers ; they wore thg Uvfiry of such, at least. In the Queen's house at Naples where did William Austin sleep ?-^I don't remember. Will you swear he did not s|eep in the nextroom tp her Rpyal Highpes* ? — I cannot remembeT-r^Cnon pitsso ricordormi). % Where did Dr. Holland, her Royal Highness's physiwan, sleep ^-^1 do Ijot remember. Will you swear there was no other passage through which her Royal High ness could go to Bergami's apartment, whei) he was ill, except that in which you slept ? (The witness not seeming to comprehend the question, it was repeated to bim-) I have seen that passage I spoke of, bqt other passages I have n9( seen. Will you swear that was the only one l—rXhete was a great saloop, af|.*r which was her Royal Highness's apartment, and then came a cabipef. Will you swear there was no other passage ? — I caqpot swear ;=-,! b^ve seen no other passage than this. Will you swear the only passage to Bergami's room was tbrovgh ths CabiPP* ? ¦>— I cannot swear that there is no other passage. You will not take upon you to swear, then, that there might not have been another passage ? — There might have been another passage. I canppt say : I Kpeak of one passage ; 1 have only seen that one, that I remember. Lord Longford. — Will you swear that there was no other way in which.a person wishing to go from the Princess's room to Bergami's room coijld go, except by passing through the cabinet 1— There was, I tUnki another passage going to the room qf Bergami. (Counsel resumed.) — Without passing through the room in tifhich you slept ?—m Yes, Sir. Where did leronimus sleep ? — I don't remember. Where did Cameron sleep 1t-\ don't remember. 1 see you don't remember ; I take it then for granted yovj don't remember where Mr. Craven's servants slept ? — I don't remember. The constant repetition of the witness's answer " SluestQ non mi ricordo" (I don't remember,) occasioned some laughter. Did you know the female servant, Dumont ?— Yes. Where did she sleep ?: — I don't know. Were their other female attendants ? — Yes. Where did they sleep ? — I don't know. You recollect when Bergami was ill ?^ — Yes. Was it not a very severe accident which Bergami met ftpm a kick of a iorse ? — Yes. He was much hurt?— Yes, it was so strong, he could not ride or go. 88 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. t)id this accident not confine him to his room ?— I can't say, not having ^(cnowledge qf tJie illness, » ¦ • Were you not taken into the service of the Princess to attend Bergami in that illness ? — Yes, ,Bergami told me to attend' him. You have said he could not ride : could he walk ?— I don't know. Did he go out walking ? — / don't know whether he could walk. Did you see him walk out, as he usually did before his accident, from his joom to the streets ? — I can't tell. '\ , Will you swear that during his illness he ever walked out once?— I donf remember to have seen him. Did you ever go into his room during the time of his illness ?— I did ; I helped upon him — that is waited. Did you often so attend upon him ? — Yes. Did you at any time of that attendance, then, see him walk ? — At least I cannot say; I don't recollect. Was he attended by any medical man ? — I do not remembei". '. - Did you not see her Royal Highness go into the room of leronimus when he met with an accident ? — / do not remember. Have you not seen her go into Sir Wm. Cell's room when he, too, was confined by illness ? — / doji't remember. Was it not her constant practice to go into the apartmeht of any of her suite who happened to be ill, in order to see after their health and their treat ment ? — I don't remember - (non mi ricordo). - You were never ill yourself at Naples ?-^No; I don't recollect. The Princess never entered your apartment while you were ill ?^No. i Did the Princess make any difference between the highest and the loWest of her servants, during any illness of any of them? J The 5o/mVor-Gf«era/ objected to this mode of pursuing the cross-examina tion. It was assuming that some of them were ill, of which there was no proof. Mr. Brougham.~Then I will put the question this way, for I mean to as sume nothing — ^^Whether the witness observed on the part of the Princess any difference in her treatment of either the high or the low in her visits to the Sick ? The Solicitor-General. — Precisely the same objection applies to this mode of putting the question as to the other. 1 object to an assumption of any thing. Prove it; ask him whether any of the servants were ill; whether leronimus was, or any body else ? Mr. Brougham. — Then I shall, to save trouble, vary the question, though I do not think I have been incorrect. VVere all the servants of her Majesty's suite always in perfect health, t\- cept Bergami, during his illness from the kick of the horse ? — Quetto non mi ricordo — / don't remember. (A laugh.) Was there any physician in attendance at any time except upon Bergami ? — I don't remember any other except while Bergami's accident. Will you swear there was no physician in attendance at any other time ? — Queslo non mi ricordo — / don't remember. (A laugh.) On what bed did you sleep in the little cabinet while attending upon Ber- gam.i ? — On a mattress. Had it any curtains ? — No. •¦ When her Royal Highness went from Naples to Rome in March, 1815, what English persons were with her f-^I cannot say exactly. There was Dr. Holland; Icronimus, as far as I know. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 8£i Was not Lady Charlotte Lindsay there ? — I don't know. Was there no English lady with her Royal Highness ? — I remember to have seen one English lady; I forgot the name: the liitle thin one I remember. Did not one of these English ladies go with her Royal Highnejis in the journey from Naples to Rome ?. — I don't remember. What lady did accompany her ? — ^I"'herc was a Madame Falconet. Any body else? — Madame Falconet was taken to be the wife of a banker at Naples, and she had two daughters. Was she an English lady ? — I don't know. Did she speak English ?— I don't know. Did she always speak English, or what other language }—She always spoke like French. Did she take her two daughters with her in the journey of the Princess from Naples to Rome? — Questo non ricordo (1 don't remember.) Did you ever see Madame Falconet's two daughters in the Princess's house with their mother? — I think, or I fancy, I have not seen them. Did you ever see them any %vhere else? — Yes; I think 1 saw them on the Way from Naples to Rome with the Princess. Of what age were the daughters ?— -I don't know. Were they young ladies, or young children ? — I don't know. [Here the interpreter, after putting this question and repealing the answer, observed, that the witness did not seem to comprehend the question.] The Lord Chancellor. — I desire it to be known, that the witness must not be interrupted while be is giving an answer to a question. I saw the counsel pulling a fresh question while he was answering the last. Mr. Brougham disclaimed any wish to interrupt the witness. Ho was al ways desirous to have his answer complete. The Lord Chancellor replied, that he imputed no blame to the counsel, for the witness at the time had his back turned to him, and of course he (Mr^ Brougham) could not have seen whether the witness had finished his sentence or not., -After a few words in explanation between the Solicitor-General and Mr. Brougham, respecting the form of putting questions, the cross-examination was resumed. The former question vvas then repeated. — Ans. Young ladies. Did you see Lady Charlotte Lindsay, or any other person beside Madame Falconet, when her Royal Highness left Naples ? — j^o« mi ricordo. Did you ever see more than one English lady in her Royal Highness's household at one time ? — Non mi ricordo. . The interpreter explained, that these words meant " I don't remember,- or I don't know ;'' and that ihey answered to the French phrase, " Je ne sais pas." Mr. Brougham considered the correct translation of the words to be of much consequence ; and he dissented from that which had been put upon them by the Marchese : upon which the Marchese Spinetto (the interpreter) begged that their Lordships would apply to the interpreter for her Majesty. who was behind him, and would correct him if he was wrong. Their \.oxd- 'ships desired Mr. Cohen, accordingly, to be asked, which was done by Mr. Brougham. How do you translate the words " Non mi ricordo?" — '* I do not recollect." How do you render,'". I don't know ?" — " No so." Mr. -JSroMgAaws then appealed to their Lordships. It would be the most <:hi!dish thing in the world in him were he to talk of his knowledge of the 90; TRIAL OE TH£ QUEEN. Italian language ; because their Lordships had appointed an interpreter, and they were to take the witness's answer through him. But if it appeared that they always translated " Non mi ricordo " " I don't recollect," it seemed ta bim that it might be allowable for a person — even, who was only a Tramon tane, like-himself — to doubt whether the same words could sometimes mean " I don't recollect," and at others " I don't know." [The interpreter, -with their Lordships' leave, re-stated the question.] Lord Hampden desired the interpreter to. say how he would translate " Thii i don't recollect." — The interpreter replied, " Non mi ricordo questo." * Mr. Brougham said, that was exactly his construction of the words. Did the interpreter, by " Non mi ricordo," mean to say " I. have no recollccr tion," or " I have no knowledge ?" The interpreter answered, " I have no recollection:" and that the word "questo," which was desired to be pre cisely staled, applied to the particular circumstance spoken of. The cross-examination. was then resumed by Mr. Brougham. You gave us an account yesterday of your knocking one night at Bergami's door, at Genoa, so loud that he must have heard you; and that you did not receive any answer ? — I did. What sort of people were they who were coming to the house that night, that it made you go and knock up the Baron ?— the. Baron Bergami ?. — It was when that attempt was made to rob the house. Do yOu mean to say, that robbers had broken in, or threatened to break into the hoiise ?-^ Robbers had come into the house. Was not the alarm given, that it was a part of your friend Qmpteda's gang ? The Solicitor-General tuhmxtted that this was an irregular question, and liable to the same objection which he had already made to a former one. It was assuming that there was a person of the name of Ompteda, and tbat he wasa friend of the witness's: it was assuming, too,.that this was a gang of rdbbers. Mr. Brougham. — So they were, by the answer to the last question which I put. The SoUcitorrGeneral. — Of which gang you also assume, -that the friend of Majochi, the witness, was a part. Mr. Brougham. — A part of the gang ! He was their head ; their ringleader. The Lord Chancellor, addressing the learned counsel, observed, that he had said, he would go by steps; but here he was assuming the whole of the facts^ ¦which it was not competent for him to do. Mi. Brougham had not so understood the matter; but would wave. the question. Counsel resumed. — Did not you wake from your sleep on that occasion, and go to the window ? — I opened the window, and saw a tall person below me. I went out. 1 took a gun and fired on this person. I had seen this person; these persons — for there were more than one; and they fled. Here Lord Mansfield (from the Gallery) moved that counsel should with draw, which was ordered. Lord Mansfield then asked, whether Sir Wm. Gell was one of the witnesses' summoned ; and being informed, that Sir William was ordered lo attend, I'" dema,hded whether he was present. The Lord Chancellor asked if Sir Wm. Gell was present, in attendance upon the house ? The- Usher of the Black Rod informed their Lordships that he was. Upon Lord Mansfield's motion that he be called in, ¦ , The lard ChanceUor was of opinion, that their Lordships might hear him iwkhin the house; but, if so, he did not know if such a proceeding should nol TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 91 be subject to a (Question, whether he might thereafter be examined as a witnesH upon the question. (The SolicHor-Oeneral was about to speak, but the Lord Chancellor continued.) — Their Lordships, as he understood the matter, had thought it would b6 most proper, that the witnesses, upon\ both sides, who were not under examination, should withdraw while the examinations were going on — with the exception only of those who were employed upon pro fessional business, or who were attending, otherwise, upon account of a necessity to do so. He apprehended, that in the case of any one not falling within that description of persons to whom he had just alluded, it was entirely within their Lordship's discretion, whether or no they should admit him to be afterwards examined, if he had been so present. But it was extremely fitting that counsel should knoW what the understanding of the House was upon this head, for fear they should lose the benefit of evidence which might be most material to them. The question for their Lordships to consider must, be, whether an individilal, having been present in the house at the examination of witnesses, could afterwards, himself, be examined for that purpose ? Earl Grey understood, that it was the wish of the House, that the other witnesses, upon both sides, should retire during the examination of a witness. If any one were now present it might be contrary to the understanding of the Hous<», and from error, but it would be much better that the House should now lay down distinctly what il would rule, in order that no witnesses might here after be present except those who were necessarily so. The Earl of Liverpool concurred in the propriety of the course recom mended by the noble earl ; he only wished to know what he meant by the words " necessarily present." Did he mean to say professionally? or did he mean " necessarily," as for the purposes of cqiisultaiion ; for he (Lord Liver pool) could easily conceive, that in the case of the Queen it might be necessary ihat some of the witnesses should attend in consequence of the information which they could giw. He submitted, that counsel on either side should have their option — that of having the particular individuals present in ihe House, or of afterwards examining them. He agreed in the opinion of the noble earl, but wished to know what he meant by being " necessarily" present. Lord Grenville should recommend, " that witnesses not yet examined should be directed to retire, and that they should not be present without the leave of this House." All the witnesses who might be retained upon both sides ought not, he conceived, to be present. If it were wished by counsel to have the assistance of an officer who might be a witness, for the purpose of conducting the case, he ought not to be present. That officer could not be presumed lo be present, or, if he were present, he could not afterwards be examined as a witness. The Lord Cliancellor was sure their Lordships would feel of what material -importance it was that the rule sliould be laid down clearly,, beyond dispute, and so that it might be certainly known. He hoped their Lordships would, then, have no doubt whatever upon the subject. He was quite sure, that he spoke to an assembly which would feel the deepest possible regret if it should happen, that an unfortunate misunderstanding should exclude any witness whose testimony might satisfy their Lordships as to what the proo^ was.. He should hope, that they W'ould take the uile which had been suggested byj-ttrt; noMe Lord under the gallery — that any person ordered to attend on that House, as a witness, during the present proceeding, should not be suffered to ibfe -exaipiiiedy.if he should have previously been present during .theiesaminaiitMi of any other witness. But he should be very sorry, (whatever might, be th^i S2 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. inconveniences which might arise from a contrary course,) if their Lordships applied this rule to such an extent as to exclude parties employed as the agents of those who were concerned in the case; or, in oonspqucnce of such a mistake as bad occurred, if their Lordships appUed it in the present instance. (Hear, hear.) He, for one, would ten thousand times rather meet these in conveniences and consequences, than that, because of a misunderstanding, this evidence r>liould be shut out The I.flrd Chancellor then repeated the rule, and asked their Lordships, whether it was their pleasure to adopt it ? Earl Grey said a few words in explanation. The Lord Chancellor thought there could be no doubt in the world, but that in this case, as in cases of a much less complicated nature, occasion might arise, in the course of the business, to calf in witnesses whom the counsel, in a former part of the proceeding, might never have intended to call, nor seen the necessity of bringing forward. After one or two observations, in a low tone of voice, from the Marquis of Lansdomi and Lord Erskine, the question, founded upon the suggestion of ^ Earl Grey and Lord Grenville, was put and agreed to ; and counsel were again called in. Earl Grey observed, that there might be some convenience in prohibiting witnesses who were to give evidence there from giving it without. The same principle which had now excluded ihem from hearing the evidence of one another within these walls, should be applied to exclude them from receiving it in any way without. Mr. Brougham represented to their Lordships, that, in consequence of what had passed yesterday, one of the witnesses had been present at this ex amination. He meant Sir William Gell, But he meant to say tbat he was so present, officially, upon his duty, and not professionally. Their Lordships would observe, that Sir William Gell was there in attendance upon - her Majesty. (Order, order, from Lord Liverpool: and cries qf " Withdraw") Mr. Denman hoped their Lordships would permit him to mention one par ticular circumstance. It might be known to them that Lord Landaff was another of the witnesses summoned upon the part of her Majesty. In the course of the morning he bad asked his Majesty's Attorney-General's permis sion tbat this witness should be present at the proceeding. He felt it his doty, however, now. to apply for their Lordships' permission, because the consent of. counsel on either side could not affect the rule. He considered it inclimbent upon him to give this notice, in order either to retain his Lordship 3S a witness for evaminallon, or have the benefit of his being present. The Earl of Lirer/wo/ said, that was quite a different thinn. An Irish Peer, though he was not a representative Peer, had a right to be present at the proceedings of that House. The Earl of Limerick hoped, that in the application of the rule iheir Lordships would not make any such invidious distinction. The lard Chancellor had not recommended it for the purpose of excludinir either any Irish Peer, not being a representative Peer, or any other person" except those to whom it was to extend. The Aftorney-Oeneral begged to know whether the rule was meant to extend to those persons who, frorti professional duties, were obliged or under a necessity to attend,, in this stage of the proceeding, at the bar of their Lordships? If their Lordships pleased a list should be made out of atl those who it was requisite should so attend, and given into the. Lord Chsii- eftUws hands. - TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. QQ The Ij)rd ClftutceU^r thought ibat it might be very convenient; but ihe rule could not be meant to extend to tho>e who were professional ly engaged. Mr. Brougham askgd whether his Lordship ineant, by that, counsel, attor neys, and their clerk* ? The Lord C&unceUor.— Yes; and airy pther persons whose attendance is absolutely necessary. During the discussion upon E:irl Grey's motion Sir William Gell had re tired. .\ pause now intervened, and Mr. Brougham requested tt know whether it was their Lordkhips' pleasure that he should go on. (Cries of " Go on-, go on") ' Counsel resamed. — ^After the robbers had attacked or threatetw'd the house, »nd you fired on ihem in the way you have described, >* as not the whole house alarmed hy what had taken place? — I iminediutely ran to knock at the d(K)r; and then, in going down stairs, 1 found tliut all the people Were coUtK^ted, and coming down stairs. Did you ste one of them with a drawn sword in his hand, upon that oc casion ? — Non mi ricordo, — (i don't recollect.) Was Captain Hannam there on that occasion ? — Non mi ricordo. Wa.s leroniiiius thej-e?^Th(re was all the family; but I cannot say, hidi- vidually, whether he was there. ' Did y 'J u ^ee Bergami there ? — Yes, Bergami was there: I saw him. How long after the first al rin vvas it thai you went to knock at Bergami's door? — Three minutes. Three minules after you bad fired the piwre ?— Yea. After knocking at liergami's door, and not fi-nding hira there, did you <)[)en the door, to see whether he was in the room or npt ? — No; J did not open the door; 'jut Lc'rgaini came out, abo4.it a quiirter of an hour afU't ; ¦ he m^de a great noise wh«n he came out. And where were you at the time I'ciganii did, what yon choose to call, cofjie «ut ?— {H-ere the Interpreter submitled ihat it was impossible for him ,'o put the question In this manner; he could not ask him what ^^e cho.se in plesited ¦to call " come out.''] I mean to ask hian where he was* w-heo Bergami did, mh'it he calls, come out? — I knocked at the door, and, receiving no answer, went down ;5t,j»irs; and then all the family werecoming out ; end dieii Isaw Bergami coming Out ; in about a quarter of an hour after. Mr. £rtn«g^^«m here observed — He fi,r«t fires upon the robbers; three |mi- nutes previously he has knocked violently at the door of Bergami's room ; tben he gcx?s t» see what is the inaiter. liut it seems that in a quarter of an hour after this it is, that the house is alarmed, and be fires at tbem;- Will you ask him, how soon it was after he fired the piece that be saw Berr giufni and the rest of the household come out ? — I fired; I ran into the room, and knocked at the door of Bergami's room, but received no answer : I went back again to the place where I had fired : the family were collected on the stairs, and theie was a cr) -of " Robbers ! robbers 1 we have robbers in the house." I remained theie until the tamily had retired, and it was peijce- able. • How long were you knocking at Bergami's door ?— -I nemaiiaed a long time, and I knocked very loud ; louder and louder. Did yo.u go below, from Ber^flmi'* door ? — I went d.own into the ,saime room where the ro'bbers got in. Where dtd you, firfct s^ all, see Bergami, after this time ? Where, fir»t of 14 94 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. all, did you see him again ? — In the same room where I returned, and in which the thieves had been. , ' You have said that the Princess went almost immediately from Venice to a private house at Naples ?— Yes. \ What is the room which is next the Queen's in that house? — There is a great saloon, and a corridor in which there is a room which leads into the bedroom of the Princess. What other room leads into the Princess's room, on an}' other side, and opens into it? Is there any other room except the saloon ? — These rooms are upon two sides of the saloon ; on the third side there are others. Explain yourself. (The Interpreter here put the question again.) On those i two sides there are rooms, and on the last side there is a room which is open to the air. Was not the room used as a sitting-room, on the side which you speak of,- that which opened into the Queen's room ? — I don't know what use these rooms were for. Was it there wrhere leronymus slept ? — I don't know. (No so.) Beyond those rooms which you have described, and of which you say you don't know the use, was there a staircase ? — I don't know. I have not seen any staircase on that side.' Where did William Austin sleep in this housel— Non mi ricordo, (A laugh.) Where did Captain Hannam sleep ? — Non mi ricordo. Was he with the Queen at 'Venice ? — He was. Was William Austin with her? — He was. Was leronymus with her? — He was. Was Cameron there with her ? — No : he was not there. Was the Piccaroon there; the child I mean ; Bergami's child? — Non mi ricordo. Did the Piccaroon, Victorine, always sleep in the same room with the' Princess?— Genero%. ' After the time at wbich the Piccaroon child came to live in the house with -her Royal Highness, did she generally sleep in the same room with the Queen? — I do not know. Do you know of her ever sleeping in any other part of the house? — I cannot say. Did you ever know her sleep in any other part of the house orof ships ?— • Non mi ricordo. [The interpreter here complained that the witness did not understand the common est word ; even he was so ignorant that he (the interpreter) did not know how to put a single question to him.^ Will you swear that you ever, in your life, saw Victorine sleep in any other part of the house or ship, except that where the Queen was ? — Sometimes she slept under the pavilion, where was. the bed of her Royal Highness, some times down below the deck, and sometimes wilh the dame d'honneur, some- iimes under the pavilion- with her Royal Highness, sometime^ in a room with her. [The Solicitor-General was about to address their Lordships, but was bere called to order.] Whom do you mean by " dame d'honneur ? " — The Countess Oldi. Sir, upon your oath, now, did you ever see Victorine sleeping out of the room where her Majesty slept at that time ? — This I don't know. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 95 Did you ever see Victorine in any bed or room asleep, in which bed or room her Royal Highness ivas not to sleep that night ? (The interpreter here again sub mitted that the witness did not appear to understand him. Having repeated the question once or twice, the witness at length comprehended him, arid replied) — I never have seen it happen. Did Mr. Burrell, an English gentleman, go to Venice with her Majesty at the time you have spoken of i—Non mi ricordo. Do you ever remember seeing a gentleman of that name in her Royal Highness's family for any length of lime ? — Yes ; a short young man. When and^ where ? — At Villa Villani : when we lived at the Villa Villani, at Milan, he was there while we were. Where did he sleep at Villa Villani ? — Non mi ricordo. Where at the Casa Borromeo i—Non mi ricordo. Where at Venice? — I don't remember seeing him there at all. When you went a second- lime to Genoa was not the arrangement of the rooms the same as usual with respect tq, the Princess and Bergami? — The Princess went to Genoa only once ; at least, the second time, she went imme diately on board the ship. You have never seen the Villa D'Este since the lime you spoke of before, after you came back from the long voyage ? — I have not. Was the disposition of the rooms the same as before wilh respect to the Queen and Bergami ? — It was not. Was there not a staircase, or a landing-place of a staircase, on one side of the Princess's room alone ? — There is a small corridor. Is there a sitting room on the other side, not opposite, but on the other side ?— There is a small corridor, upon the left of which is a small door open ing into the room of the Princess ; this is a door which is generally locked. In the middle of this corridor is a cabinelto ; out of the cabinetto there is a door which leads into another room. Does not that cabinetto communicate on one side with the Princess's room, and on the other with that where Bergami slept ? — This room, into which the door of the cabinetto opens, leads into that where Bi^rgami slept. Did her Royal Highness ride on horseback on this journey to Egypt ?i — Yes. About how many hours was she in this way on horseback? — Non mi ricordo. Was it four hours ? — She mounted in the evening when the sun set, and dismounted in the morning when the sun rose, but 1 had no watch. Will you swear that she did not frequently ride in this manner for as much as eight hours at a time ? — Non mi ricordo. Was she not extremely fatigued when she dismounted in the morning from these rides ? — It was said that she was very tired, and immediately went to rest herself on a Turkish sofa. Did you not see her supported, from excessive fatigue, the last hour or two of the journey i^Non mi ricordo. [At this period of the examination her Majesty entered the House and took her usual seat below the counsel and near the witness. Their Lordships rose on her entrance.'] After she dismounted from her horse, the Princess sat upon the sofa because she was tired ? — Yes. Did you not yourself sleep or rest yourself during the day between the inner and the outer of the two tents where her Royal Highness reposed ? — Yes, and Carlino. 9& TRIAL OF THE QUEEN: Was not this the regular place of lest for yoa and Cdrlino in the faours of repose ?-i— I slept on one side, and Carlino on the other. Who was Carlino ?— It was said that he was a nephew of Bergami. One of the servants f — He wore n livery as I did. What sort of sofas were put in the tent on this occasion: was not One an iron bedstead and the other a sofa ?~First there was a Turkish sofa, and then I placed an iron bedstead there. I understand that no bedclothes were put tipon the sofa ?^^Not tbat I recollect. Was not the sofa put down in the same way as a sofa in a room ?<™-Yes; in the middle of the pavilion there was a pillar, -and the sofa was placed close to it. Was il not in every other respect placed there in the same way as-^sofas are placed in rooms ? — it was a sofa like others. Was there not a small mattress on the bed ? ^'Ycs ; which belonged to the small iron bed. Was it not cased in leather ? — Non mirieordo. Was it notyour office to put it there ? — My office and Carlino's. These are the sam^ bedstead and sofa that were on-board the polacre?— There were two bedsteads; one went into a trunk, and the other folded up in a bundle. ' , But you do not recollect which was used ? — The iron bedstead was a little larger, Wasjiot the sofa used in the tent thesame sofa as was on board the po lacre ? — Non mi ricordo. Was it not the same identical sofa ; or, if not, was it not so like it that you might mistake the one for ihe other ? — I cannot answer that question. Was it not the Princess's constant practice, on the voyage, to throw herself down in the middle of the day for repose, without taking off her clothes ?--¦ Non mi ricordo: to that 1 paid no attention. Will you take upon you to swear that during the whole of that voyage the Princess ever look off ghe stitch of her clothes ? — After her Royal HSghn«88 had dlsmopnled from- the horse, she undressed hersielf to rest. What part of her clothes did she take off for that, purpose ?— Her Mpper garment, her goiin. Do you mean to say that her Royal Highness took off her gown, orasur-- tout or cloak in which she might have been riding? — Questo non mirieordo. Was there not a cloak which she used to throw over herself, on dismount ing, before she went to rest ? — Qiiesio non mi ricOrdo. ¦ Did she put on a mantle when she mounted to pursue her journey ?-^Qa«W non mi ricordo. Were there sheets and blankets on the sOfa in the tent, on which a person could go to bed, taking off his clothes, as in Europe ?-^ I placed the bed ijnd some feather pillows, and then retired. You did nol put any sheets or blankets on it ? — Non mi ricordo. Was it exactly so wilh the sleeping in the tent on board the polaCre i^Ndtt mi ricordo. I know that there « ere cushions, but I do hot know whether,- the beds were made. Will you swear you ever saw, either during the land-journey in Palestine, or the voyage by sea home, one stitch of bed-clothing cpott the' beds ? — Non nd ricordo. Who, except yourself and CarJino, ever made these beds on land or during the voyage ? — Non mi ricerda. TRIAL OiP THE QUEIHr. 97 ¦' Hava you nofsworn that it was your duty and C<|,rlino'« to make the beds ? — rWhen we arrived I placed the bed in the tent, and then I want out. You told us who made the beds at night ; who removed them in the mei*n- ing? — Non mi ricordo. Will you swear it was not yourself? — Non mi ricordo. In the evening I was ordered to make the bed, and I carried the cushions : in tho morning 1 was called to take away the cushions, for it was not a matrimonial bed — a large bed; but of single cushions. Did you bappen to see William Austin rest in the tent in the ssme way? — f Non mi ricordo. Do you know where Lieutenant Hannam slept ?—iV''on mi ricordo. Do you know where the Countess of Oldi slept ? — Non mi ricordo. Can you tell where Cameron slept ? — Non mi ricordo. Where did you sleep yourself?—! sometimes slept on a sofa below. Where did the maids sleep ? — Non mi ricordo. Where did Lieutenant Flynn, the commander of the vessel— who is, I be lieve, a master in the navy — sleep ? — iVon 7ni ricordo. - Do yoB recollect such a person being on board, bcfidos Lieutenant Han nam ? — Yes ; 1 knew it. Did you not observe him bolh by himl and by sea ?— -Was he not present at the land-journey as well as the sea voyage ? — Nun mi ricordo, •¦ Will the witness sv.ear that Lieutenant Flynn was not on tbo land-journey to Palestine? — I will not. What age is Lieutenant Flynn ; is he about 30, or above it ? — I cannot say. Is he older or younger, apparently, than Lieutenant Hannam ? — About the same age Has the witness ever seen hira in her Royal Highness's suite, except dnripg the voyage lo Palestine ; except during the long voyage? — Non mi ricordo. Did you ever see him, in your life, at the Villa d'Este, at Barona, or at any other of the places where her Royal Highness resided f — J cannot recollect whether I have or not ; I don't recollect to have seen him at d'Este ; indeed I DO NOT recollect AT ALL. When did you see Lieutenant Flynn for ihe last time ? you must know that. — Nun mi ricordo, ¦ About what time did you last see him ? — I cannot call on myself to state thi* time particularly. On the return voyage he was on-Doard, and I do not know that I have seen him since. Wereyouever sick during the voyage home from Jaffa, on board thepolacref -^Whenever I am on board a ship, / am mare wmcll than well, [Some observations were here made on the exact meaning of the words " sempro non sano," as introduced by iho witness in his ansuer.'which Mr. Brougham observed must be taken as conveying the idea of " always ill," and nol "forthemost pari,'' or " almost always," as might be inferred from the translation. It vvas, however, decided tbat ihe answer .should remain,] When you were unw^?llyou went below, did you not, in the course of your voyage ? — Sometimes I threw myself on a canvass, sometimes on a sofa ; some times I went down and threw myself on w hal.soever was supplied 'to me. Did you not sleep during the voyage below ?— Someiimes. When vou were ill on the voyage, did you not sleep below?—! sometimes slept in Ibehbld, in the boiiom of the ship. (In profondo.) Have you not been frequently, during the voyage, for days tortither, that 98 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. you never made your appearance above at all ?-^Sometimej I did not come vp. I was sometimes one or two days without coming up^ fThe witness immediately corrected this last answer.] The Interpreter. — The witness said at first, " When I was unwell, sometimes J^ was a day or two without coming up ;" now he says, that sometimes, when he was uusvell, he was "all the whole day" without coming up on deck. Will you swear that you have not been for several days together without coming up ? — Spmetimes, when sick, I have been below all the day. Mr. Brougham. — I say, several days.— -Ans. I have sometimes been below all the day. Will you say that yon have never, during the voyage, been kept below by illness for more than two days together ? — 1 have been an entire day without coming up. I was, at different times, whole days without coming up on ac count of illness. In the morning I arose, and I kept down below till the evening. Will you swear that you have not been more than two days together vvith- out ever coming up at all ? — I have been below one day and one night. Will the witness take upon him now to swear that he never, during the whole voyage, was more than one day and one night together without coming up on deck ? One of their Lordships objected to the periphrastic mode in which the in terpreter translated this question. The Interpreter. — Permit me to say, with humble deference to your Lord ships, that, in order to make the witness understand me, and to give your Lordships satisfaction, I must translate the question in this way. If I were speaking to a man of literary education, I could easily make him understand the question '; but w'\th s\ich a fanfaron (romancer) it is impossible, unless every thing is stated in the plainest manner. On the motion of the Earl of lAverpool, the other interpreter was called in, and Mr. Brougham's question — " Whether the witness would swear that he never, during the whole voyage, was more than one day and one night together without coming up on deck ? — was repealed by him. The witness answered in the affirmative. Does the witness mean to swear that he was never more than 24 hours to gether without coming on deck ? — Yes. Have you never continued below fot more than that time— from one morn ing to another — for more tlian 24 hours following each other ? — No. During the time you were aboard ship did they not keep watch, as is usual, on deck i—Non mi ricordo. Were you the only person on deck in that part of the ship where her Ma jesty rested during the night ?— I did not sleep on deck. When you saw a tent put up for her Majesty to sleep in, were you the only person then on deck ? — Non mi ricordo. Were there no sailors on board of this ship ? — There were. Did Ihey never come on deck }-^Non mi ricordo. Did they always remain below in the hold with you ? — Non mi ricordo. I believe they did at night. Do you mean to represent that the ship was left to go alone, during the whole of the night, without sailors on deck ? — I cannot tell whether the saihrs were in thp hold, or upon the deck, when the vessel was sailing in the night. Did you see the sailors during the day on deck? — In the day-time I believe they were on deck. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 99 About how many sailors were on-board this ship ? — I do not know. Were there two or four ? — / don't know. Will you swear there were not 22 ?— I cannot swear. About what size was this ship ?— I cannot give an account at the present, because I have no knowledge of shipping. So that, whether there were two sailors or twenty-two on board, you don't take on you to swear ? — No. Was there a Captain on board? — Yes, the owner of the ship. Was there any other officer in the ship ? — Non mi ricordo. Who slept in the place where you used to sleep ? — Other persons slept there, but I don't remember who. Where did the livery-servants of her Majesty sleep }—Non mi ricordo. Did they sleep on deck ? — Non nti ricordo. Were not you a livery-servant ? — Yes. Where did Bergami sleep ? — Non mi ricordo. How many masts had the vessel ? — Three. Will you swear that it was not a ship of 300 tons burden ? i (Cries of " no!" from their Lordships, intimating an objection to this question.) — The witness, however, answered ; Non mi ricordo. When her Royal Highness was below, was there not a room before you en tered her dining-room ? — Non mi ricordo. Where did her Royal Highness sleep on the voyage out from Augusta to Tunis ? — No answer. When her Royal Highness was on her voyage from Sicily to Tunis, where did she sleep ? — No answer. When going out in the vessel, by sea, from Sicily to Tunis, where did ber Royal Highness sleep ? — Questo non mi ricordo. When proceeding to Greece, where did her Royal Highness sleep on her voyage ? — Non mi ricordo. When going from Catania to Palestine, to the Holy Land, on board the ship, where did her Royal Highness sleep then ? — Non mi ricordo. Where did Bergami sleep on those three voyages, of which you have just spoken? — that I don't know. Where did you sleep yourself? — Below. Do you mean in the hold ?— Yes. Were you ever at all in the dining-room of the vessel ?^Not when the Prin cess was there. Were you ever in the room in which the Princess used to dine, not when she was dining there ? — Yes. How many doors were there in that room ? — Non mirieordo Dou you not know tbat two rooms entered inlo that dining-room ? — Non thi ricordo. Was the bath, when taken, always taken in the dining-room itself ?— Not in the dining-room, but in that next to it. What does the witness mean by the room next the dining-room, when he has said that he knew of no other ? — / mean another small room near it. Does he mean, when you enter from the forepart of the vessel, through which persons. get inlo the dining-room, that there was another small room branching off from it? — After you entered the dining-room, there was a small room inside, erected for the bath. [Al this time, half-past two o'clock, her Majesty retired from the House to her private apartment ; the peers stood up as she left the House.] lOU TklAj;< OE THei QUEEM. The examination was then continued^. " How often did you hear that her Royal Highness took the bath, durmg this voyage? — I can swear to'two'ti'mes; she might have taken it four: I can only remember twice. Was it Bergami's ofiice to prepare the bath for her Royasl Highness ?-+'Thwt 1 don't know ; I believe not. - , - Whose office was it in.her Royal Higliness's household ! -^Tbat 1 don't knew. Was il the witness's office? — I was ordered to carry the water into the bafh. Did you carry the water inlo the bath, or only to the door of the dining- rWj-llfl ?'^I was ordered to make the bath, and I filled the bath with water, as far as one-half; then I called Bergami, and he went down and put his hand into the batb to try its temperature. He then told me to get ready some more water, to give to him, in case it should be wanted. When you brought the water to fill the bath fcalf-fulli and calkd Be-rgftmi to see whether it was the right temperature, was there any other person in ih^ room but Bergami and yourself? — There was no bther person. Did you not then retilxj, and leave Bergami to see whether the balh was rightly prepared or heated? — After I called Bergami, and Bergami thrust bis hand into the bath, I was ordered to go and get ready some more water:) that I might give it to him, in case he wanted il. Was there nol another room (ipening into thedining-roirm, besides th* rooio in which the bath was ? Was there not a second room that openwl i»to it?-i- Non'mi licordo. Will you swear there were not two rooms ; one belonging to ihe Princess, and one to the Countess of Oldi ?— / cannot remember whether there was atmthtt room or not. But you will swear that Cara-ere^trdid not slei'p in such a loow? — Matiritc Cameron?-^! never saw him there. Did you ever see Maurice Cameron on the voyage at all? — 'He wa« onboard'. Was he on board, and with her Royal Highness, during the whole of (h^s long voyage? — He»vas; but 1 do iroi remember where he slept, 6at you don't swear t-hal be &\4 not Sleep ii4 ihedining'toom T-^Hedid Act. Was he not with her Royal Highness during the whole of the land-journey, as well as the sea-voyage? — He was. ' Was he nol a courier and page? — I rememtrer he was a courier, but I dp lidt know whelher he was a page or not. He was no relation of Bergami, was he? — That I don't know ; I cannot know. Yo-u have called Cftflino a rektion of Becgahii, because he was sard to be so; was Cameron ever said to be a relation in the same way? — That 1 never heard. What niaids (femate atteird^nts) had her Royal Highness with ber on this long voyage ? what number?— There was Mademoiselle Dumont, the Coffl-nwss of 'Olth, a brmietie, and another. Where did you last see Dumont ?— At Pesafo, when I left the serviee of her Rojral Highness. Have you never seen her StnCe that time 1— Never. Do yoB know where she is now?-- 1 do not know. Does th'e witness know Whether she is dead or alive? — ^I caniiat kno* tliift. Have you never heard of her since yon left Pesaro ?— Never. Have you ever heard ber talked about since that time ? — No. Have you never heard ber name mcntiotied sirifie ?-^I never have heard it mentioned. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 101 HaV6 jou never heard the name of Sacchini mentioned since thnt time? — ] have beard the name mentioned. Have you seen bim since you were at Milan? — Not since. It is possibib I may have, spoken to him-^incc; but I do not recollect it. Who were by'at the times when you saw Bergami at breakfast Wilh the Princess? Who saw them at breakfast besides leromimus and yourself?- — The Solicitor-General objected that it was not yet in proof that leromiibus had seen them. You saw them at breakfast? — Yes.- letDiiimus was present at that time l~Non mi ricordo. Was the Countess Oldi present. ? — Non mi ricordo. Was not leronimus present at any bf the times when you saw the Princess and Bergami at breakfast together ! — I do not recoiled whether he was preseht. Who was by when you saw Bergami fealiUe her Royal Highness on goirig to do some business for himself in Sicily ?-i-I saw nobody but myself, the Princess, and Bergami. Wbo was present besides yourself when Bergami saluted the PrinCess on landing, on account of the quarantine in Italy ? — / saw nobody but myself, the PrincetS^ a*d Bergami. Was it not upon the deck of the vesfcel, after dinner, that this happeil^d ? *— It was before they went upon deck. Was it not after dinner ?-^After dinner. And where had they dined l-^Noh mi richfdo. Was it not in the room in which they had dined thsli this took pl&de ? — It was tA the dining-room : the Princess was there^ and Bergami came to take leave on departing. Where you nol in the room at the time ?-^I was. When her Royal Highness slept in the tCiit on deck, did ghe'fiot burn a light at uiglit ?— No. Have you ever been at Villa d'Este since you quilted the service of the Princess ? — Yes; after being at Pesaro I went to Villa d'Este. Did you go there straight ? — Straight forward. Bow long did you stay there }—^Nmi mi iicordo. Was it days or weeks? — Days ; but how many, precisely, non mi ricoi'di}. Have yott ever been there since that lime?— ^I was there a second lime. How lorig after the first time ? — Non mi ricordo. Wasit months or weeks? — I cannot say, but I do not think more than a month. f Did you ever apply to be taken back inlo the service of her Royal Highness ftfter you left itl-^Noh mi ricordo. Did you ever apply to Count Vassali to be taken back ? — Non mi ricordo. Did y6ti ever apply to Baron Biergami to be taken b^ck ? — If I well recol lect, never. Did you ever m'ike application to- Luigi Bergaiiii for that purpose ? — Non mirieordo. lAdy&u aver apply to Mr: ScMavini to make inteiest for yow being taken backf WtJlSiclE I t)it>. When was that once ? — At the hotel of Italy. How lo''ng after you left Pesai'0'?^-JV^*?! nti rieorda. A Week aff<^?-i^ft'I(We than* a mOntb. Will you swear it was not more than half a jreart — 1 cai^not riecoUeCt how fb^tif fif^mhs it wafs.^ Did you ever write a letter to be taJken bach di^e'r to Bartolomeo j^ergami, 15 102 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. or to Schiavini ? — Never, because it is my misfortune to know very little of writing. Did you ever get any body else to write a letter for you for that purpose ? — Never, as far as I can recollect. When you made application to be taken back at the hotel of Italy-, were you refused I—Non mi ricordo. \ Were you in fact taken back ?— No. Have you ever been taken back in point of fact?— -After I left the service of the Princess, I never entered it again. Was not Schiavini with her during the whole of the voyage to ihe East?— He was on board thn vessel. Was he nol on shore too? — He was also on shore during the whole of the journey. In the journeys by land which the Princess made, did not Madame Oldi and the child Victorine travel in the same carriage with her Royal Highness? —Questo non mi ricordo. Was Billy, William Austin, in the same carriage wilh her ? — Questo non mi ricordo. Whose house did the Princess occupy at Carlsruhe ?^-I do not know. Was it an inn or a private house ? — I believe an inn. Was it not an apartment in an inn which the English Minister had given up to accommodate her Royal Highness? — Non mi ricordo. Were Wm. Austin,. iMadanie Oldi, and Victorine, with her Royal Highness on that journey Ir-r^on mi ricordo.. Will you lake upon you to swear that they were not all there with ber ? — They were on the journey. Were they not on the journey the whole timet-— The^ were. Did tliey not goi wherever her Royal Highness went on that occasion? — Yes. Was it not a journey -which her Royal Highness undertook, to pay a visit to her relation, the Grand Diike of Baden? — I recollect that she set out on a journey to Baden. Did not the Elector wait upon her at Carlsruhe, and did she not go to court there ?— I do not recollect precisely. Dp you mean to say that you do not recollect whether the Princess, while at Baden, did go to Court at all?— Her Royal Highness went to Court. ' Did the Grand Duke wait upon her Royal Highness at her hotel?— That I cannot know. , , Was the English Minister seen with her Royal Highness at that place?— -I -do not know. Do you liappen to know the name of the English Minister then at that place ? — Non mi ricordo. You have des(:ribed a change having been made in the Villa d'Este during the long voyage? Was not a new wing built to. it ? — Non mi ricordo. Do you mean to represent to this court that you do not recollect whether a new wing was added during the time you and your mistress were absenttr-- Non mi ricordo. Was not a new door made? — Non mi ricordo. When the sports were performed by Mahomet, was not Dr. Holland present •with the Princess ? — No, I did not see him. Will you sWear that Dr. Holland was not present ; and I do, not care which way you answer? — No, I did not see hi in. TUIAt OF THE QUEEX. 105 Cputd he have been there without your seeing him ? — I did not see him. The Solicitor-General. — Mr. Brougham forgets that, according to the evidence. Dr. Holland quitted at Venice, and this man came from Jaffa. Will you swear that Lieutenant Hannam was not present when Mahomet played off these tricks? — I did not see him: if I had seen him, I would have said it. Who else was there besides yourself, theperformer, and her Royal Highness? — I saw only Bergami, the Princess, and Mahomet, on that occasion. Whom did they send for Mahomet? Did they send you? — Non mirieordo. Were you so placed that her Royal Highness saw you at the time, as well as Mahomet '? — I was in such a position, that when Mahomet played his tricks the Princess did not see me, but Mahomet and Bergami did. Was it in a room? — No, in a court. Did any windows look into the court ? — All the windows of the apartment. Where were you placed ? — I stood near the door that led to the lake. Were you in the court where Mahomet was? — .'^l the door leading to the lake. Where was the Princess? — At the window of her bed-room or cabinet ; but precisely I do not recollect. Where was Mahomet ? — He was coming out of the door of the stable alone. Did Mahomet stand in the court to perform those tricks? — Near the win dow of her Royal Highness. Was his back turned lo you ? — I was at his side. Mahomet was looking at her Royal Highness. Then you were on the same side as the Princess, looking out at the window 1 [The witness described, by the position of the house, that Mahomet was on oile side, the Princess on the other, and he at a door towards the back, in the middle.] From the position in which you stood on the opposite side of the court you could, see her Pioyal Highness ? — I was at the door at the back, and saw the Princess at the window. Yet you swear that she could not see you there? — She could see me, but I do riot know whether she had seen me. Who ordered this Mahomet lo come and perform these tricks ? — I do not know. Then, for any thing you know, tiiere might be some persons in the same room as her Royal Highness, standing a little way behind her? — I could not see if there were any body within. I saw her Royal Highness put her head out of , the window'to seife the riian play those tricks. Did you never see this Arabian play the same tricks on any "other occasion ? —Yes, at Barona. Was her Royal Highness present then ?.— Yes, wilh Bergami. And any. body else ?, — The people of the fsjmily. Men as well as women ? — Footmen, coachmen, kitchbn people, and scullions, who were there- to look at hira. When you left her'K-pyal Highness's service, ybu say, that you first Went into the. service of the Marquis of 'pnischalfi ? — Yes. Were you in her Royal Highness's family again when that affair of the Baron Ompteda took place ? The Solicitor General objeeted to the terms of the question. Did you ever see a certain Baron Ompteda f — I do not remember his name. .Did you ever,, the year before you went the< long voyage,' see a German 1% TBIAIf OF T|1B( Gljft5?»\ Baron dining with, her Rp^al H)g!!fles?; a.t Xife; i'M^}rr'^ ^h^, C^^ Vil}»ni I saw him : he was a prussiati. Tell us what his name spundied lik;e, ajS.welfa^yiQU can rec.plleQt.-T.^Th,e n»B\^ I, cannot tell precisely, because it was. ^i\ extraordinary "^nift.i hut hft was callied Baron of so.ipething. Whatever his name might be, was he very frequently at her Royal High'^ ness's ? — I remember well, so thjit I can swear that he wap tvyice at. tbe.Caia Villani. What njakes you recojlect his coming there '''^V ^^ "°' knowf^. Did any a%ir happen in the Princess's family which njade a, noise cpi\i)e?ted with this ^aron ? — Non mirieordo, During the time you were in the service of her Rcjyal H'ghnes^ at Vi\lft Villani or Villa d'Este, do you recollect apy blacksmith or; Iqckspii^h hejng examined there respecting the picking of locks? — Non mi ricordo. About making false keys ? — Non mi. ricort^o. You never heard of such a thing iti the_ fapjiily, while: you were there,?— I do not recollect to have heard it. Do you remember no quarrel taking plape, between, Lieut. Hajpna.nft and the German Baron, while you were there ? — I had heard that they, had ha,d a quarrel together, but I do not know the cause. About what tiiiTe did you hear this. ?^-JS^ora mi ricordo. Before or after you came from the long voyage? — Nonmiricordp. A,bout how long before you left the Princess's service ? — Non mi,ricordp.. Do you mean to say that you cannot tell whether it was. a week,or twft years? — I do not remember the time. Do you remember what compapy used to come to the theatre a.< Vulat d'Este, where the Princess acted tvyice ?^-l dp ""' know. bid you ever see the Prefect of Como Tomasi and his lady attepd, th.ty, theatre?— Qwwio no« JBJ ncpr(fo. Professor Mochetti,of MilaUj did you ever .see him, there?— I saw, hiift there. Do you mean that you saw him at the Villa visiting, or at the tbea.tre.?— ' 1 have seen, him come to pay visits, b.ut never at the theatre. bid you ever see General Bognar,'the Austrian coinmandaiit, with his lady, come there?— I remember well, that he. came to visit her Royal Higbue^ with a lady; but whether she was his wife or not, I do not know. Did you ever see General Pino visit the Princess ?-r-I rer^iember seeing, h*"* once, but it might be more. Used you to wait at table at dinner ? — Yes.. Will you take upon you to say, that you, do not know, that your old master. Genera) Piw, d'ued with her R,c(yal Highness, more lha,n once ?-r-l only, saw him once, that I recollect. Did you knovy the person of the Prefec.tToojas.i, of Como ?-r-Toiipasi I kW"- Will you say that you haye not seen hjm and his lady djjue, more than once with the Pri-ncess ?-r:T.N'«>^ mirieordo. Do you mean ihat you never saw them dipe. there, at all, or only once? I only recollect his dining once; it might be more than once. Did not the persons who happened to be visiting in the Princess's house take part; indiscriminately in th<:«se pjay? which were acted al her p^i,v,ate theatre?— > Non mi ricordo. Did Mr. Hannaip. ne\eract? — No^mi riaofiiO\ '^\r.C&vA\\^\,\\t-rr-Non. mi ricordo. , ^ ¦ Do you mean to represent, that you.never saw apy other parts perfpTffled •^MAh OF TIHB aUEEtf. 105 on that stage, excepting by her Royal Highness and. Bergami ?— I do not know : at the moment I entered I saw her Royal Highness and Bergami ; other people I saw nol, for I went away. What sort of a comedy was it they were acting when you saw them?— On entering the room, I saw Bergami playing the part of a Buffoon, striking a bladder, like a fiddler. Then I went away and»saw nothing else. Did Mahoinet perform his dance on that stage?— I never saw him. How long were you in the service of the Marquis Onischaiti ?— Nearly a year Always in Italy ?-:-Noi, in Germany. How soon after you went to him did you go to Germany? — Two or thre© months, I cannot say precisely. How long were you with him at Vienna? — Six or seven months, but I do not recollect precisely. What wages had you from him? — At Milan, I had 50 soldi (25d.) per day: At Vienna, four livres of Milan. How many soldi are there in a livre of Milan? — Twenty. At Yienna, was this rise of wages in consequence of your living at an hotel 1 —Because I lived out of the house, and had to pay for my own dinner. What salary had you from her Royal Highness? — Every three months I received 2g ducats. How many livres of Milan are there in a ducat? — The ducat contains 6J Milan Fivres ; but ! do not speak precisely. Had you these 29 ducats every, three months, living all the time at the t^bje of ber Royal Highness? — Yes. Had you any perquisites besides? — Non mi ricordo. Was her Royal Highness kind to all her servants? — She was kind and affable. At the Marquis Onischalii's, where you had 50 soldi per day, you had to fi^ed yourself? — I was allowed soup. [The interpreter explained that the -uiord here used by the witness did not mean pottage, but merely liquid. Had you saved money — a Httle fortune — in the Princess's service ?-^l put by 700 LIVRES. How long had you been accumulating it? — Three years. Did you save any thing out of the 50 soldi per day which the Marquis Onischaiti gave you ? — By economy I was able to save a little money for my &mily. What did your family consist of ? — A wife and two daughters. How old are they ? — One 9, and the other between 2 and 3 years old. ' About what time did you quit the service of the Marquis Onischaiti, at Vienna ? — About two years ago. Into whose family did you then go ?— The Ambassador's, of Vienna The English Ambassadflif? — The English Ambassador gave me something to live upon. What was his name ? — Lord'STEWARX. Did you go as postilion, lacquey, or courier, into his service? —lard Stew art gave, me only my living, Do you mean that you became attached to his embassy as a sort of private sepretary, or what ? — I vas always at the embassade. Were you in his house on the footing jof a private friend ?—l^o, not as a friend. When did you first see his Excellency, the English Ambassador ?— 1 do liot remember: I saw his secretary. What was the secretary's naiiie ? — Mr. Durin. 106 TRIAL OF THE QUEfiW* Was he an Englishman or an Italian ? — I cannot tell. In what language did he talk to you ?— In French. ; Do you know a certain Colonel Brown? — I do. .., ; ' What countryman is he ? — It is impossible for me to know. What language did he talk ? — French. tVheie did ycu first see him ? — At Milan. Was it while you were in the service of the Marquis Onischaiti ? — No. Whose service were you then in? —At that time in the service of no one ? I— had left the service of the Marquis Onischaiti. i . Do you mean to say that you left the family of Onischaltifor some time at Vienna, and then went to him again ? — No; I left Vienna, and went to Milan to Colonel Brown. Did you go wilh him, or to hiin ?— To him. Whom did you go with from Milan to Vienna-? — With my father. At what time was it that you went from Milan to Vienna with the Marquis Onischaiti ? — Oh the 13th August, 3 years ago. Do you mean in 1817? — Yes) At what lime did youdeave the service of the Princess?— In 1817. In what month of the year ? — Non mi ricordo. Was it in summer or in winter ? — In summer ; after summer. . How 'long after you left her service did you go with the Onischaiti family ta Vienna? — About 5 or 6 months after, ' How did you return to Milan from Vienna?— I came to Colonel Brown. But whp accompanied yoii ? — My father. It was here remarked by a noble Lord that 4 o'clock, the hour fixed for adjournment, had arrived. Mr. Brougham said. May I implore your Lordships to allow me tp, proceed ? In all courts — I mean in all courts where justice is administered — I, need not have made this humble request ; but, acting as a coiirt of justice,! entreat your Lordships to beware how you stop short in the middle of a. cross-exa,mi- nation. If you are so advised to think fit that should stop at thi^ critical period of a critical examination, hard as it is, I can only submit. (Cries of " Go on, go on,") .- The Jjord Chancellor asked whether it Woivld be finished tO'day. Mr. Brougham answered that he could certainly finish it ; but that there was this difference between an examination in chief and a cross-examination-*-' that, in the first case, the instructions were written or-printed ; and, in the last, one unexpected answer (as had actually been the case to-day) might lead to half ari hour's digression. (" Go on, go on.") Was j'our father in the service of the Marquis Onischaiti, at Vienna ? — He was not. Then how came he to come to Vienna ? — He came to Vienna to take me. Who sent him for you ? — I cannot tell. M hat is your father ? — Jean Baptiste Majochi, -, " What is his business ? — A carter or carrier of merchandise, 'with horses. Does he carry from Milan to Vienna ? is that the tou'rSe he'fak'^s with his merchandise ? — No. , ' , How did this carrier hjippen to set out to pay you a visit at Vienna ? — ]cie came to Vienna to tell me to- come to Milan. !Did he corne with his carrier's cart ?— No. At the time your father came to Vienna, were you in the service of the ambassador? — No. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 107 Were you living at the ambassador's house*?— No. Was it during the time you vvere supported by the ambassador ?— No. In whose service were you .'—The Marquis Onischalti's. When your father took you to Miliiii, did you then see Colonel Brown or Colonel Durin? - 1 saw Colonel Durin at Vienna, and Colonel Brown after wards al Milan You had seen Colonel Durin at Vienna while you were with the Marquis Onischaiti ?- No, after my father had come lo fetch me. What induced you to leave the service of the Marquis Onischaiti, whom yutf lilted so well, and go back with this respectable old carter to Milan ? — My father told me to go to Milan with him. Did you go to Milan merely out of respect to the order of your father? — No, heioldme Colonel Brown at Milan wanted to speak to me. Did not you humbly represent that your bread depended upon your place in the family of Onischaiti ? — Yes. But still he told you to go and speak to Colonel Brown, and therefore you went to speak to him ? — Yes. Whenever any body tells you to go to Colonel Brown because he wants tr> speak to you, do you go directly with them ? — (Cries of " order" prevented the witness from "answering this question.) Mr. Brougham — I submit that it is a perfectly legal question, such as is put in every court of justice, and such as has led before now lo the discovery of conspiracies against the lives of individuals. Noble Lords and judges arenow present whom I have seen save the lives of their fellow-subjects by such ques tions, and so put, and who could not have done it if they had been disturbed by cries of " orrler." You went to Colonel Brown directly? — When my father told me so, I went to Colonel Brown directly. , ' And if your father were to ask' you to go to speak lo Colonel Black, would you go also ? The Solicitor-General. — I submit that that is not a proper question : what the witness would do under peculiar circumstances cannot be asKed him. Hy pothetical questions are not regular. Did you ever go before by your father's desire to speak to Colonel Brown or to any body else ? — Never : before my father spoke lo me, I never went to any place. Had you ever seen Colonel Brown before you went to speak to hira at Milan ? — Never. How did you support yourself on the journey from Vienna to Milan, when you went to speak to Colonel Brown ? — My father paid my journey. Has he made a private fortune by the lucrative trade of a carter or carrier? — He has not. 'Has your father any money at all but what he makes from day to day by bis trade ? — No; Did you live pretty comfortably on the road from Vienna to Milan to speak with Colonel Brown ? —We wanted nothing. You did not go in your father's cart, I suppose ; in what sort of carriage did you go ? — In a species of calash. ¦ When you got to Milan, did your father introduce you to this Colonel to whom you had come to speak ?— Yes. Did you complain to Colonel Brown of the loss you sustained in giving up a good place or a good master i-^Questo non mi ricordo. \ 108 TRIAL OF THE QU^ESf. Had you made any bargain with the Marquis Onischaiti to take yotj back after you Came to speak to Colonel Brown ? — Non 'mi ricordo. j Have you any donbt, upon your oath, that yOu made no such barg^ih with ihe Marquis Onischaiti *¦ — Non mi ricordo. Have yob ever been in his service again since the con-versation With Colonel Brown ? — Yfs. When did you go back to the Onischaiti family ?— I was not in his service again;, but he was ^oihg to Hungary, and he called to know if I would gb With him. Did you go with him as a partie de chasse, or did yon go with him for pleasure ? — I was asked by, the JNlarquis if I would go with him ihto Hungary as his cook for three months. Did you go with him, and receive wages as a cook for three month's f — He made me a present ; I had no Wages. ' How long did you remain in Hungary ? — Three months,' or three mirths itnd a half. Was Onischaiti, a friend to (he English Ambassador al Vienna ? — I do not know. Did you never see him at his house ?— I do not know. •How long is it since you came back from that trip to Hungary with the Marquis Onischaiti ?^-Last year, after the month of August or September^ Having no wages, how did you support yourself from the time you left Vienna to the time you came back and went to Hungary with Onischaiti t — ¦The ambassador gave me something to live on. Did ihe ambassador give you any thing when you Went to Milan ?-- jNoJj mirieordo. Who paid the expenses ? — My father. Did you go post or how ? — Post. Both goinfr and coming back ? — No. How did you return from Milan'to Vienna ? — By a public conveyance. Who paid ? — I and my father. Who gave you the money to pay .^-^-^Colonel Brown. ", - Did your father go back with you ? — Yes. Is your father in the country ? - He is. And your wife? — Yes. And your small family of children ?— No. In what square or street do you live in London ? — I cannot tell the nafrie. How did you come down here to-day ? Did you walk or Gome in a dat'- ri^ge ?— On foot. ( About how far Was it ? Your shoes are quite clean : how many streets did ytfo pass through?— I cannot tell the distance. How many minules did it take you to walk from your residence, .your bouse. Or hotel, to this place ?^ — Ten minutes. Who came with you ? — I do' not know: it was a gentleman who came to call me. ' • ¦ Do your father and wife live in the same hole! with yOU ? — Yes. And is nobody else living in the same hotel ? — Yes. About how many others ? — I do upt know. Will you SWear there are hot 7^ ? — Questormn mi ricordo. Are they all Italians ? — I do not know :' I nevfei' asked. Ave tliere any other Italians there besides yourself, yocflr venerable parent, and yopr amiable wife ? • TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 109 f [The House showing some symptoms of disapprobation at this question, Mr. Brougham repeated it, leaving out the epithets.] Answer. — I believe so. Have you any doubt of there being any other Italians besides yourself there ? — There are other Italians. Are there many waiters in this inn ? — I do not know the number. Do you know the sign or name of the hotel ? — I do not know. The 5o/ic(Vor-GeH(.T«/ complained that Mr. Brougham had assumed that the witness lived at an inn, and founded his question on that assumption. Lit an inn in which you lodge? — I do not know whether it is an inn. Is there a sign above the door ? — I never made the observation. Have you had any bill brought to you to pay? — No, (with emphasis.) Have you ever paid any bill ? — No; but I have to pay. Are you lo pay, yourself, for your entertainment at this inn ? — I have not yet been asked, and I do not know whether I have to pay. But are you to pay for your 07vn keep ?—l no not know. ^ Were you ever in such a place before, where you did not know whether you were to pay for your own keep or not ? Lord Falmouth, from the gallery, as-ked whether the cross-examination was nearly concluded ? (Cries of " Go on.") Supposing that the business would close to-day at four o'clock, he had made a private engagement accordingly, though he was quite ready to sit till six or seven o'clock, if necessary. Lord Donoughmore thought the rule, if made, ought to be adhered to. Nbbody could tell whether the cross-examination might not last two hours more. He thought that the witness deserved protection, and that some part of the cross-examination might have been spared. He moved an adjourn ment. Earl Grey had seen nothing in the disposition of the House not to give pro tection to the witness. Very material questions to elicit the truth had been put, and he thought that no rule could be more injurious than one which forced the House to separate at a critical moment, by which the-ends of jus tice might be defeated. If a rule were made, he hoped it would be extended to five o'clock. Lord Falmouth added, that he had not interposed till half-past four. The Lord Chancellor was in favour of adhering to the rule. He had not entered the House this morning till fiv'e minutes past ten, in consequence of consulting with the judges on a matter of life and death ; and their farther deliberation had been postponed until after the adjournment to-day.- j'lt was impossible to know what questions might turn out lo be material or immate rial. Adjourning at five o'clock would gain six hours in the week, and that he considered a very material acquisition. The Earl of Liverpool did not object to five o'clock being fixed in future as the hour of adjournment. The House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock, with the understand ing that in future they were to sit till five. The proceedings this day tended greatly to expose the base conspiracy against her Majesty. This creature, Majochi, who affected in his first exami nation to detail a series of events and circumstances of a criminatory nature which had taken place in the course of three years, could, when put upon his cross-examination, absolutely remember nothing, or almost nothing, by which his own assertions were exposed. He could recollect the. Queen's go ing into Bergami's room during an illness; but could not recollect her con- 110 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. descending and humarie attendarifieupon others qf her household when ako labour.' ing under sickness! If the man were to be believed, he has had a partial existence during three years of his life. He has lived under a capacity of observing and retaining every thing that could by any possibility throw a sus picion upon the Queen of England ; and has been wholly unendowed with the, power of recollecting any thing else, either about her or himself during that period. One most striking self-conyiction was wrung from his unwilling mouth: he had sworn that at Naples, A. D. 18 14-, the Queen could have, no access to Bergami's bed-chamber but in passing a closet in which he (Signor Non Ricordo) . reposed ; but in his cross-examination he allowed there was another passage by which her Majesiy might have reached the object of her regard, except that she might wish to lake a peep at this sleeping Endymion in her way. But the statements of Mr. Attorney-General with respect to the indecent dance imputed to the orientalist Mahomet are at once refuted by the witness even in his first examination : he denied a certain position of the dancer's 'trowsers alleged by the opening Counsel; hence, therefore, appears the iniquity^of the green-bag system, and the total injustice of the present mode of trial. Prom whence did the Attorney-General draw his allegations of the state of the fellow's trowsers when he danced before Bergami and the Queen ? Upbn what authority did the Solicitor-General found his questions? No doubt, upon the authority of the witness's previous depositions. The witness must, therefore, have contradicted upon oath in the House of Lords, that which he had before deposed upon oath to the Milan Commission : but the de positions taken by these latter having been consigned to the Green-Bag, the evidence given before the Lords could not be compared with them. Either the King's Counsel must have invented the beastly allegations about the dance, o« Signor Non Ricordo must have forsworn his previous swearings at Milan ; for, in answer to the question by the Solicitor-General, '' whether Mahomet " did any thing to his Irowsers with his hands, or when going on with the . " Giuco ?" the wiiness replied, " I did not see him do any thing." — Ques tion, " Was the position ofhis trowsers the same as usual ?" — Answer, " Always." Every thing that Majochi had previously sworn "with respect to the solitude of her Majesty's bed-room, now appears to be utterly false ; for, being asked whether he ever recollects the chi)d Victorine sleeping away from her Majesty, he answers, " Non mi ricordi." And again, to a similar question, " this I " don't recollect." The wiiness, we must notice also, with whose evidence it has been thought proper to open this notable cause, is so grossly ignorant, that even the very interpreter, sworn by Government in its own behalf, com plains, " that the fellow does not understand the commonest word; even he " (the interpreter) does not know how to put a single question to him !,! 1" ' Her Majesty entered the House about half-past eleven. She was accom panied by -Lady .^nn Hamilton, add was received by the officer and the detach ment of the Guards, who were upon duty, with every demonstration of respect, they immediately presenting arms, add remaining in that position until her Majesty, having- alighted, had entered the House by the usual door. She looked extremely well, and was received with the usual affectionate tes timonies of that deep interest which her extraordinary situation has so uni versally excited. A great number of gentlemen pressed round her carriage, in order lo manifest the same feelings of sympathy and homage ; the expression of which was gracefully acknowledged liy her Majesty. A few minutes after TBIAL OF THE QUEEN. Ill four o'clock her Majesiy returned from the House of Lords to her residence in St. Jame's square. On entering her carriage she was cordially and triumphantly cheered by the sp^-ctators who had gained admission within the barriers. The crowd assembled in Parliament-street to witness her departure was greater than on any of the former days. The result of the cni-.>,-e\,i mi- nation of the principal witness f)r the prosecution, oxcitcil so joylul ttn in terest, tbat thousands of respectable individuals pressed arountl her Majesty's carriage to express their congratulations and their loyal attachment. SIXTH DAY.— Wednesday, August 23. The Lord Chancellor took his seat at the usual hour. Before the witnesses were called in. Lord Darlington suggested the propriety of having the evidence printed, so that their Lordships might be in possession of cupies of the proceed- • ings of each day on the following morning, f-lis Lordship said, however diffi cult the accomplishment of this object might be, he thought it indispensable; for it might be necessary for their Lordships to ask questions on Biaiiy points, and he believed few possessed memories for retaining the great mass of evidence detailed before them for any length of time. For his part he declared himself totally unable to keep the evidence in his mind, so as to avail himself of it after a considerable period by recollection. The evidence given by the witness insupport of theBill on the first day had made a great impiession on his mind; but the cross-examination which took place yesterday tended very much to di minish that impression. Some objections being started to this proposal by the Lord Chancellor, his Lordship withdrew his motion. Lord Lauderdale suggested the propriety of having drawing plans of the places and subjects alluded to in the evidence. . The House being then called over. Counsel were introduced, and the cross- examination OF Theodore Majochi resumed. Do you recollect a German Baron visiting the Queen at Naples ? — Nun mi ricordo. Do you recollect a German Baron visiting her at Genoa while she was on , her way from Naples to Milaji ? — Non mi ricordo. Did any German Baron visit the Princess at Villa Villani, at any time during her residence there ? — I recollect a Baron came, but I thought he was a Rus sian. Do you recollect whether he was the same person spoken of yesterday f —No. Was his name Omteda or Ompteda, or something like that >—Quisto non ini ricordo. Was it Rampdor ? — Non mi ricordo. Da you recollect this Baron, by whatever name he might be called, sleep ing more than once at Villa Villani ? — Once I remember, not more. Had he not a servant who used to live with the other servants of the house ? —I recollect that be had a servant, but whether he lived with the other ser vants or not, I do not remember. Was there not a room called the Baron's, giving it his extravagant name, whatever that was ? — Questo non mi ricordo. ^ Do you recollect a thunder-storm occurring on the lake at Como, by which the company were all.wet ?— Qmc*^P non mi ricordo. lis TKIAL OF THE QUEEN. You haVe said that in the house of Naples all the rest of the family except Ber^awj slept in another part of the house than that in which the Princess slept ? — NON MI RICORDO whetket the other part of thefahily lived apart. Do you now mean to say that the rest of the faniily, Bergami excepted, did not sleep in a separate part of the house from the Princess ? — / remember the position of the beds of her Royal Highness and Betgami, but riot of the rest of the family. '"' 'i' Then you do not recollect, and will not nowswear^ (h'at the rest of the family did sleep apart from the Princess ? — Questo non mi ricordo, I remember well where Bergami and her Royal Highness slept, but as to the rest of the family I do, not remember. In the answer you gave the day before yesterday to thequeslion whether the bed-rooms of the other people of the Princess's suite were not d'stantfroin those of the Princess and Bergami, did you or not say that they were separate and at a distance? — The witness hesitated, and the question being repeated lo him several times, he said he remembered only the position of the beds of her Royal Highness and Bergami. , Was not this question put to you the day before yesterday — Did the other . part of the Princess's family sleep in the same part of the house at Naples that she and Bergami slept in, or at a distance ? — It is true that question was put. Did you not answer that question by saying they were separated ? — I sEiid they were separated, but I meant that they were so situated as not to commu nicate together. Did~you mean thereby that there was no way for a person to pass from the room of her Royal Highness to the rooms of the rest of her suite, without going through Bergami's ? This question was followed by some/ discussion between the counsel. The Solicitor-General said the first answer given by the wiiness was, that the rooms were separate. Mr. Brougham knew that perfectly well, and he had so stated it. His learned friend seemed to triumph in a mare's n-.'St which he thought he had found. After some further observations, in the course of which Mr. Brougham read the answer which had been given by the witness. The Lord-Chancellor said that the proper way was not to tell the witness what answer had been given, but to put a question upon it. Mr. Brougham said he had put the question in tbat way. He had stated that the word interpreted was "separated:" but he had five or six witnesses whom he could call, if necessary, to prove that Majochi did not say " separata' but "lontano," which means at a distance. He was, however, perfectly satis-, fied to take ^^ separata," The Solicitor-General objected to this course, as an interpreter had been sworn, and given his interpretation. If his learned friend had wished to take any objection to the translation, he apprehended he was bound to do so at the time,- and before that translation was recorded.. His learned friend was not warranted in making it the subject bf observation now. Lord Redesdale thought that some diflficulty arose from the interpreter find ing il necessary lo repeat Mr. Brougham's questions in various ways to the witness, and suggested that the question, as' taken down-by the short-hand writer, should be read to the witness, and that the interpreter should then translate his answer literally. Here JVIr. Gurney read from his notes the question put the day before yes-" terdiiy, respectijig the situation of the bed-rooms at Na'nles. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 113 Mr; Bi'ougham. — Do you mean to repeat that there was no way of going from the Princess's room to the rooms of the rest of the suite, except through Bergami's? — What 1 remember is, thnt there was a way to Bergami's room : I HAVE SEEN NO other PASSAGE. Do you mean to say that there was not any other way of going from her Ro^'al Highness's apartment to the rooms of the rest of the family? — I have SEEN NO OTHER PASSAGE. No Other passage than what ?— I have not seen any other passage except that which went lo Bergami's room. Do you know where the rest of the family slept? — Non mi ricordo, ., Will you swear that the rooms of leronimus, William Austin, and Dr. Holland, were nut close tu that qf her Royal Highness? — QvESTo non mi ricordo.* When you went from Vienna to Milan wilh your father, where did you lodge at Milan ? — Alhome: at my own house. How did j'ou support yourself? — On my own money. How long did your money last? — Non mi ricordo. i Did. any body give you money ? — Questo nun mi ricordo. Did anybody give you money at Milan? — When I left Vienna I received money; at Milan none: for I must speak clear. Did any body give you money at Mdi\nl-~ Ricordo di no, was,the witness's answer. Mr. Brougham said, that, in fairness to the witness, this answer must not be taken in the sense of his non mirieordo; il ineant, literally, I recollect not — by which he meant to say lliiit nobody did give him money at Milan. How long did you remain at Milan? — I do not recollect precisely; be tween 18 and 20 days. When you returned to Vienna, did you not pay the I'dlurrino (carrier) yourself? — Yes; I did pay him myself.. Who gave you the money at Vienna? — Colonel Brown. Who gave you money at Vienna to go to Milan ? — My father paid for my journey. Any thing 1 do not recollect but that my father jiaid for me. Who gave you money before you set out for Milan ? — The Solicito.r-Gcne- ral objected to this question. His learned friend assumed that some person had given the witness money. Air. Brougham observed, that it appeared from his former examination, he he had received money, and referred to the notes. Mr. Gurney read the questions qnd answers, in which it was admitted by the witness that he had received money at Vienna. • This part of Majochi's evidence deserves particular atleiition. In answer to a question on Slonrlav, he swore Ihat The bed-rooms of the other people of the Princess's establishment were separate and distinct from those of the Queen and Bergami — To day he knows nothing about the position of the beds. He does not know whether tlie bed-rooms of other persons in tlie Queen's suite were not as near to the Princess as the bed-room of Bergami. He does* not know whether there were not other passages to tlie Queen's bed-chamber than through Bergami's room. Nay, so ignorant is he about the position of the bed-rooms, that he does not know wheiher Dr. Holland, Wm. Austin, and the steward did not sleep so near her Royal ' Highness th/il it we,rB impossible but Ihey must have observed any improprieties of which shp might have been guilty. Tt will be remarked how this fellow swore on Mbnday that the rooms of Bergami and the Princess were separated from other p-aris of liSr suite, and lliiit the only passage to the room of her Royal Highness was through the room of Bergami. It will also be remembered that the separation of the rooms of Bergami and the Princess from the rest tif the household'constitnted one of the principal charges of the Attorney-General, and lliatlhe chifrge is unsuopbrted by his principal witness! . 17 ¦ . 114 TRIAL OF tHE QUEElff. Who gave you theinofiey at Vienna' when you left that city for Milan?-— - For the journey my father paid. Nobody gave me money. My father paid, and I remember no one gave me money. At Milan did nobody give you money? — Nobody gave me money when I arrived at Milan. While you remai-nedat Milan did nobody give you money }-— Ricordo di no, mi ricordo che non, — non so ! piu no que si ! non mi ricordo. I remember that there did not. — I don't know. — Rather no than yes.— I don't remember. The Earl of Rosebery said, that it was most essential that the House should understand what the meaning of ricordo di no was ; whether it was that the •witness did not remember a certain event, or that he remembered that no such thing occurred. Lord Longford begged that the last answer given by the witness should be repeated to him by the interpreter, from the short-hand writer's notes. The Marquis of Lansdown thought the better course would be for their Lordships to leave the questions as they stood upon the cross-examination; and afterwards, when the regular time came for their scrutiny, lo put such questions as they pleased. The Lord Chancellor said, the usual practice was, for the counsel in sup port of a measure lo examine first, then the counsel at the other side to cross- examine; the former agj^in to re-examine and finally their Lordships. Lord Longford e>iplained, that the only reason he wished the answer read to the witness was, to apprize him of what he had stated, and see whether he understood his expression accurately. The witness was, of course, the only person present who knew-nothing of the particulars of whatever discussion took place among their Lordships in a language which he did not understand, ¦ Mr. Brougham stated, that he and the learned counsel who acted with him wsre most anxious to attend scrupulously to the rules and practice as laid down and acted upon in courts of law. These rules, and practices had, been, witii his usual accuracy, laid down by the Lord Chancellor: and he hoped, he might be permitted to implore their Lordships to suffer the exptes* sions used by the witness to stan'd as they were disclosed upon the cross-exami nation. When the counsel at both sides were done, it would, of course, be open to them lo elicit any explanation they thought proper. (Cries qf *' Go on." The Lord Chancellor. — Mr. Brougham, proceed with your cross-examination. Mr. Brougham. — My Lords, I have done with the witness. I have no further questious lo ask hira. In a common case, I should certainly be satisfied "wTth this examination. In this case, I hav« certainly no reason to ask him a single question further. The Solicitor-General then commenced the ro-cxaminaiion of the witness. Will you ask the witness whether his- father conducted him from Germany to Milan, for the purpose of being examined touching the affairs of the Queen ^ Mr. Brqiigham.—l object lo that mode of pulling ilic question. Why nbt ask him what brought him to Milan ?. The SolicitorrGeneraL — Did your father tell you,.on the way from Germany; to Milan, the object of your journey ? — Yes. Had you any oiber business at Milan but that which he mentioned to ¦you ? —No. " , After being at Milan from Germany, where did you go ?— To Vienna. Did you receive any money before you undertook your first jpuriiey-fo Milan?'— I did before f set out. V TBIAL OF THE QUEEN. U5 For what purpose did you receive tbat money? — To travel.. [Several Lords here said, " His words are to journey." — the interpreter observed, " To jtiurney or lo travel."] Did you receive any other money before tbat for your journey ? — Non mi ricordo. What do you mean now, when you say non Thi ricordo^ — I don't remember. [,Tbis question was put by desire of several noble Lords.j — When I say non mi ricordo, now, I mean I have it not in my head lohave received such money, for if I had, I could say, " Yes;" but I do not recollect it now. Lord Grenville suggested that the interpreters should correct each other/. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the interpreter for the Queen ought to be apprized to correct the translation of the other interpreter. The Lord Chancellor, — Let her Majesty's interpreter, whenever he differs respecting the translation of an answer given by the wiiness, slate that diffe rence at the time, and before the answer is admitted. The Solicitor Gena-aL—The witness has told us, that he was at Vienna, aftier being at Milan. Who sent him there?— Col. Brown. * Who sent you to London? — I .cannot say; for a person came to tell me I was to come here, and I came. . Did that person come wilh you ?— That person brought me to London. After you arrived here, were you sent any where else ? — Yes.; over to Holland. Did that same person accompany you to Holland ? — Yes, I went over wilh him. Did you remain in Holland with the other witnesses? — I did. At this lime, half-past 1 1 o'clock, her Majesiy, attended by Lady Ann Hamilton, entered the House, and took her usual seat in front of the bar. The Peers rose from their seats as her Majesty approached her's and the Queen made her obeisance in return for ibis mark of respect. Her Majesty looked remarkably well, and surveyed the wiiness with attention. Mr. Brougham submitted to his learned friend, whether any thing in his cross-examination justified this close re-examination respecting where the witness was in Holland, how he came from thence to England., and> who accompanied him. The Solicitor-General repeated, that the object of his learned friend's cross- examination was wilh the palpable view of discrediting the conduct of th« witness. He thought he had, therefore, alight to examine the witness so as to place his conduct in a clear point of view. He was justified in taking this course, both on the rules of law and of common sense, and had a right to follow the witness in his journeys backwards and forwards u-p to the moment he found him here. The Lord Chancellor was of opinion, the Solicitor General had a right to pursue his re-examination. Mr. Brougham said, that he bad objected more on account of regularity than upon any importance which he attached to the mode of re-examination about to be pursued by his learned friend. He again said, he had not put a single question to this wiiness respecting his journeys, save the journey from Vienna to Milan and back again. He had said not one word about his going to or coming from Holland. He certainly had examined him touching what happened in London. If it werein this way open to a counsel merely because «oe question w^ asked respectiiig apart of a witness's' journey, to,go through Il6 tSiAL of THE QUEEN. the whole of that journey in a re-examination, then there would Be no end to a waste of- time— the whole of a witness's birth, parentage, and character. After a few words from the Earl of Liverpool, which were not distinctly heard below the bar, ' - The Lord CAancf/for said, that whatever difference there might or might not be on the rules' of evidence in the courts below, or the forms of parlia mentary proceedings, certainly the person who had the honour of now ad-> dressing their Lordships was strongly influenced by his judgement to siiy, that the nearer their Lordships followed the rules adopted b'y the courts below, the better. When he conjured ihera, therefore, to adhere to the rules of the courts below, be was ready, upon his solemn honour, to give his opinion — an opinion which, he believed, had the concurrence of the judges neat" him — that this inquiry of the Solicitor-General ought to go on. The Solicitor-General resumed. — Did you return wilh the same persons with whom you went out to Holland ? — No. How then i — Sorae of those I went out with remained in Holland. They did not all come back with me. Did you come in a vessel up to London ? — Yes. Did you land with the same person who carried you out in the neighbour hood of 1-liis place ? — Yes. , Did you remain in that same place until you were brought where you now stand? — Yes. Do the other witnesses remain in that place and dine together? — Yes. Ot) board the polacre, when the tent was raised, were the females Bru-! net and Dumont on board ? — Nun mi ricordo, (I don't remember.) Do you know the females I allude to?' — Yes. Do you know Dumbnt ? — Yes. Was she in that voyage ? — Yes. Did you see her from time lo lime ? — Yes. Was the sleeping place of the women below the deck ? Mr. Brougham objected to this question, and said it would be more regular to ask where the sleeping place of the females was. The Solicitor-General. — Was the sleeping-place of the females above or be-. low deck ? The Lord-Chancellor. — It would be extremely desirable if gentlemen at both sides would put their questions more in the form of interrogatories than' othenvisc. Mr. Brougham said he was always anxious to shape' his questions in that fbrm ; it was evident that he could not always do so in a cross-examination. ' The Solicitor-General. — Was Mademoiselle Brunei there wilh you during the whole of the voyage ? — Yes. You have told us of a corridor at the Villa d'Este, after your return from the Grecian voyage, next the t'rincess's apartment.; was the door at theend of that apartment ? — Yes. ' When that door was shut was there any other way of going lo the Prin cess's apartment ? -The witness not appearing at first to comprehend the question, itwas re peated to him in the following form : — When that door was shut, d'd it prevent any body going from the bed-room of Bergami to that of her Royal Highness ? — When that door was shut, as fkr as I can recollect, there wa^ another passage from Bergami's rooaj to fhaj; pf her Royal Highness, ¦ TRIAL OF THE QUEEff. 117- With respect to the bed-room occupied by Bergami at Naples, he has told us there was a cabinet in which ho slept himself. \Vas there any door opening between Bergami's and the Queen's apartments, except that in the cabinet ?¦— There was another door communicating with the cabinet. The witness then further e.>iphiiiiod — that as you enter the room of Bergami you turn round on your left liist, and then cross the room in which her Royal Highness dined ; on the K-ft of that there was a door to Bergami's apartment. Was it near the dining room in which the Princess and her suite dined ? — Yes, there was a small door there. How long did you remain in the service of the Princess ? — Three years. Were you dismissed her Koyal Highness's service or did you go away of your own accord ? — I first asked for iny dismission al Rome; then I applied to Bergami twice for il at Pesaro. Bergami did not grant it to me until the second time. When you left the Princess's service did yon receive any form of discharge or certificate of good conduct from her Royal Highness? — Yes; 1 have it ; not in her Royal Highness's hand-writing, but with her seal, Schiavini wrote the paper. Have you it about you ? — Yes ; here it is. The witness put his hand in his pocket, took out some papers, and opened one which was of the size of an ordinary sheet of paper ; a small red seal was attached to it. He then repeated " here it is," holding it up at arm's length, and moving it round so as to exhibit it to the whole House. The Solicttor-Genei-al was in the act of handing the paper to the interpreter, whom he desired to translate it, when The Marquis of Buckingham rose, and said that it would be quite impossible for their Lordships lo understand the nature of the evidence already given, wilh accuracy, unless they were furnished by the counsel at both sides with some plan or plans of the apartments to which the evidence referred. (Hear, liear.) The Lord Chancellor. — The better way would be for the counsel at each' side to agree upon one plan for the information of j'our Lordships. And if they do concur in delivering such a plan, let it have no denomination of I'ooms ; bullet die apartments be marked 1, 2, 3, or 4 : let there be no other exhibition of particular description except what is furnished by evidence. The plan should be produced to-morrow morning. The Earl of Liverpool thought the sooner it was prodtfced the better. The Solicitor-General said that he had a plan of the principal rooms ready, but it was open to the Lord Chancellor's objection a? lo the description of the apartments. One, merely numerically described, could however be put in to-morrow morning, which he had every reason to believe would be found properly accurate. Mr. Brougham said that he felt great difficulty indeed in acceding to the- production of a plan in this stage of the proceeding. When their Lordships' recollected that these plans must necessarily embrace descriptiorts-of ships, palaces, houses, inns, and other places, in so many countries and parts of Europe, they must at once be struck wilh the difficulty of compliance. The plans, even with the numerical arrangement, might lead to serious injustice. He must, indeed, be an uncommon framer of a plan, who could so arrange it as that it would not at once furnish the witnesses with the relative position of all the rooms they had to describe, and at once enable them to^ reconcile their evidence to the actual description. He begged to apprize their Lord- 118 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ships that he meant to regulate- his evidence principally, or at least a great deal, upon the description of the houses given by the witnesses at the other, side. Now, how could he do this with effect,' if he were obliged now, at the obtset, to produce a full plan ? The publication of the evidence, morn ing after morning, was not calculated to promote the justice of the case; but from the circumstance of so many of the witnesses being fpreigners, the- language of that publication was not understood by them, and consequently full information of what was passing was not received in such a quarter. But much mpre information would be given by a plan. Any man, whether he understood English or not, if he had eyes, must understand a plan. While the publication went on, and the language was not understood, the witnesses were nothiiig the wiser, but a plan at once put them in possessipn of. all. There was an end at once then to " rion mi ricordo," (a laugh) ; that vanished at once, and the tutelary saint of the plan settled every thing. If, the^plan were indeed ordered lo be^ drawn up from the description of the evidence as already given before their Lordships, then be could have no , objection to such an arrangement ; but he could nevel" consent to the univer sal circulation of such a plan as that called for, in the present stage of their proceedings. The Lord Chancellor. — No plan can be delivered in until it is proved to be accurately correct. Their Lordships bad a right to the production of such evidence as they may require for the elucidation of the cases. The better way would certainly be for the counsel at both sides to agree to a- plan. If this convenience cannot be accomplished, then the Solicitor-General can put in his plan and prove its accuracy. That some correct plan should be pro duced is, I think, actually necessary at both sides for the justice of the case. The Solicitor-General promised to produce one to-morrow morning, and- was then proceeding to call upon the interpreter to translate the paper which the witness displayed itii his hand, when Mr. Brougham again interposed and said, that he saw no reason why lhis> paper should be produced in evidence. He Iwd never said that the witness was dismissed from the Princess. He had never impeached his competency ,to fill his place as a servant. He was indeed ready to admit tbat he was; iept because he was .found to be a good travelling servant. Let hira have. this character up to the latest moment he was in the Princess's service. The Solicitor-General vvas of opinion, that, so far from his learned friend having made any such admission before, the whole object of his cross-exami- fiation, had been to cast imputation upon the wimess's character as a servant. Did he not begin by impeaching the manner in which he left the service of; General Pino, about .some horse? Did he not afterwards attempt to stigma tize hira as one of~the gang of some persons who had clandestinely got into the house ? And did he not afterwards, for the purpose of creating an un favourable impression against him, attempt to show ihat he had applied for -permission to return to his place, but was not admitted ? Independent of ¦ these three facts, the whole course of his cross-examination had the same tendency. It was therefore but justice to the witness to have his general character set right. He therefore, in furtherance of that purpose, now of- fisred the evidence of one of the parties interested in this case, to show, in what light the witness's character was held by that party. Mn Brougham repeated, that he had never impeached the witness's general; character as a servant, nor had -he ever denied that he had voluntarily left. the service pf the Princess. The first obserya^ion he bad made referred TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 119 merely to the witness's leaving General Pino. If his learncxKfricnd confined bis re-examinalion -to setting that point right, then all was well. He never said that the Princess had dismissed the witness. Besides, this paper was not in the hand-writing of her Royal Highness. The witness himself said it was written by Schiavini. The Solicitor-General observed he was the major-dumo of the household. Mr. Brougham. — But it does-- not follow that all he writes is, therefore, true. There is no evidence yet to give hira this authentic power of acting for her Royal Highness; As lo the seal, the Princess's seal might have lain on the dressing-room or dining-room table, and been affixed by any body to any instrument. How did that prove it the act of her lloyal Highness ? The Lord Chancellor said there were two questions involved in the point at issue. The first is, whether this is the act of the illustrious person whose name has been mentioned? The other question is, whether, if the paper be authentic, it is legally admissible as evidence before your Lordships ? On the latter point, he was of opinion, no doubt could be entertained, But, even before that doubt could be entertained, the person whose seal is at tached to the paper must be proved to be present, or consenting to the ap plication of the seal to the instrument. The Solicitor-General. — Doj'ou remember Schiavini? — I do. What was his situation in the Princess's household ? — He was equerry or mareschal. What influence had he over the servants ? — He had a principal command. Had he the general management of the servants ? — He had a command. Where was her Royal Highness when Schiavini giwe you that paper ? Mr. Brougham repeated his objection to^cpiestions being put upon this- paper until it was capable of being put in evidence. Let it first be brought' " home to her Royal Highness. The Lord Chancellor. — If the paper can be proved to have been framed and delivered in the presence of her Royal Highness, then prove that fact, and let it be given in as evidence. The witness replied; — I don't know ; it was impossible for me to know which of the two commanded. There was Bkugami, he commanded ; there was Schiavini, he commanded; both Schiavini and Bergami came and C07n~ manded. It was impossible for me to know which was the superior; ihey both came.* My question is this, who was, at that lime, the immediate superior of'the- scrvants of the house ; I mean, at the lime you left that service ? — Non mi viccrdo. -?- I wish to know whether you applied to Schiavini to obtainilhis paper ? Mr. Brougham objected lo this question. He contended it was not allow able, the paper itself not being evidence. The Ij)rjl Cliancellor remarked, that what was wanted was an answer almosS to his (Mr. Brougham's) own question ; fifty applications had been made for, this purpose, and they were all equally ineffectual. — - — .— ' , — .1 — — ' I " - — » So that, . notwithstanding Mr. Attorney-Gpneral's representation of the unbounded influence Bergami had over the Queen's mind, and het infatuated atlachment lo his person, ho appears only to have held a divided sway iu her Majesty's household ; for Signor Majochi swears that three years ago, the period when he left her service, and the time when the Queen's affections may be supposed at the height, he did not know whether Schiaviiii or the liaron was uppermost. 120 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The Solicitoi^eneral. — I am afraid, my Lord, that I -cannot show that thk was done by tne immediate authority of her Royal Highness. The Lord-Chancellor. — It would lead to nothing unless it could be shown ¦tbat the same individual had the same authority with all the other servants. The Solicitor-General. — At present, my Lord, 1 will nottcnder this question to the witness. I have no further questions to put to him. Examination by the Lords. The Lord-Chancellor. — Has any noble Lord any question to ask of the wit ness at the bar ? A noble Lord then said, You have slated, that upon the voyage from Jaffa fo Terracina there were tents erected upon the deck of the polacre ; what sort of weather was it ? — Nun mi ricordo. (A laugh.) Lord Ellenborough. — How was her Royal Highness dressed when she passed through ihe cabinetto into Bergami's room at Naples ? — Nun mi ricordo. Earl Grey. — Did you see her distinctly on that occasion ? — Yes. Does nut the witness know how she was dressed ? — Non mi ricordo. Was witness himself in bed ? — Yes. 1 understood witness to say that her Royal Highness went through the cabi netto where he was? — Yes. Did he prelond to be asleep?— As I sleep now. (A laugh.) My question distinctly was. Did he pretend to be asleep? — Yes; I did pre tend to be so ; I shut my eyes. Could you see in that situation ? — No one can see if he shuts his eyes. Did you shut them just enough lo make her Royal Highness think you were asleep, but not enough to prevent your seeing? — Yes; 1 did so. You staled that you left General Pino's service during the blockade of Mantua? — Not after the blockade, but before the closing or shutting up of the gates of Mantua. Did you leave General Pino's service voluntarily, or were you dismissed?— I remember to have asked my dismission from the Adjutant Lunardi ; and he told me that he would not grant my discharge until General Pino should have returned from Milan. What did the witness do during this interval, until General Pino had re turned ? — I continued tO remain in service. ' Did you remain thereuntil the return of General Pino? — Yes. Upon his return did General Pino give you your dismissal ? — The Adjutant came and told me, you are now at liberty. Did you get a certificate of service from General Pino? — No; because I really jlidnot wish for it. ;Wf)«te did you go immediately from the service of General Pino? — To Milan, to my family. How long did you slay at Milan ? — I do not remember whal timer Did you remain out of service when you were at Milan ? — Out of service. How were you employed during that time? — I got some money by buying and selling horses. When did you leave Milan ? —Non mi ricordo. Where did you go to from Milan? — To Vienna, duiing the lime of the Con gress. How. did you go to Vienna ? — I had a horse ; I bought my own ; and I, with two of my companions, put some money together, and wc bought a " caretta," (a .ipecies qf small carl,) in which we all travelled together. TRIAL OP THE QUEEN. 121 What was your object in going to Vienna ?— To see whore I could find some place lo get some bread ; some subsistence. ' ,.i, [Here Lord Erskine rose to make some observations, but they were wholly inaudible, from the low tone of voice in which his Lordship spoke, below the -bar. The Lord Chancellor desired the short-hand writer to refer tOthis notes, from which he rend an extract relative to the voyage from Jaffa to Terracina.] A Peer from the gallery, on the ministerial side, observed, that^the three voyages to which the noble Lord (Erskine) had alluded did not include that from Jaffa lo Terracina ; but were these, as he understood them — the voyage from Augusta to Tunis; that from Tunis to Constantinople; and that from Constan tinople lo Palestinei Examined by Lord Darnley. — You have staled that Bergami was in the habit of dining with her Royal Highness at Genoa. Did he, ever after, while you continued lo reside there, continue lo dine with her? -^Always, as far as I recollect. You have also stated, that Lady Charlotte Campbell joined her Royal High ness at Genoa, and lemained wilh her some time after her arrival at Milan. I wish to ask, if it ever happened that Lady Charlotte Campbell ever dined at the same table with Bergami ? — Non mi ricordo. The Marquis of Buckingham. — The wiiness has stated, that on board the polacre, in uhich her Royal Highness sailed from Jaffa lo Terracina, there was a cabinetto, in which tliere was a bath ? — I did. Did the wiiness see Bergami and the Princess enter the cabinetto together, in which the bath, was prepared ? — Yes. Witness has staled that he handed buckets or pails of water for the bath, and that Bergami received them ? — I carried two pails of water to the door of the bath, and Bergami came out and took one of lliein. Whether it was the hot or the cold water, I don't know. Did you see the Princess when Bergami look the pail from you ?. — No, because she was within. At the same time, I did nqt see her. I wish to know whether there was a cabinetto within the dining-room, besides that which was provided for the bath ? — / do not remember whether there was another cabinelto or no. , Let the evidence be referred to upon the notes of the short-hand writer, in order to see whether -witness did not say that there was another cabinetto. The Lord Chancellor directed the short-hand writer to refer lo that part of his notes containing the evidence which will be found in page 99, showing that JkfajocAz admitted there were other apartments in the dining-room, besides the cabinetto whe^e the Princess, bathed. In the next question, he does not kpow whether there were other rooms or not; though he admitted there. .were in yesterday's evidence. Mark the following question and answer, and compare it with the evidence alluded to. i Was there another small room within the dining-room besides that destined for the bath ? — Non mi ricordo. Wheji you observed the Princess and Bergami, to go into the place destined for the bath, did you see the Countess of Oldi ? — I did not see her. Did you see any of the female allendanls of the Prjj)cess ? — I did not see any of them. ^^ . Did you see afiy of the female attendants of the Princess above, upon the ' deck, when you were dismissed from below ^^I did not see any of them. The Earl of Carnarvon. — I wish the witness to say whether the tent on board 18 1S2 TRIAL OF THE QUEEST. the polacre was a double one or no? — I do not remembeT whether tliere were one or two; but I know well that in that tent her Royal Highness was. Did this tent cover the whole deck, or was there room to pass upon the side of it ?— There was room for people to pass. Do you know whether any persons silept in that place? — 'I do not remem ber; I have not seen any persons. Marquis Buckingham. — At what lime of day was this bath taken which was prepared by Bergami on board the j.ol»Cre> before or after dinner ?-^About noon ; some time before noon. Was he dressed or undressed when he received the buckets of water from - you, at the door ? — He was dressed. Viscount Falmouth.— At Villa Villani, the witness stales he remembers the Princess to have given a blue silk gown to Bergami. I wish him to be asked bow he knows that the Princess gave Bergami that blue silk, gown ? — Because I saw it afterwards upon the back of Bergami. (A laugh.) That is no answer to my question. It is, " Does the wiiness remember a blue silk gown which he states the Princess lo have given to Bergami ?" The answer is " Yes ;" which implies, of course, that he does remember her Royal Highness's giving it. I wish to learn how he knows that she did give that gown to Bergami .? — Because Bergami told me that her Royal Highness had given him that dress. Bergami himself told me. The Earl of Oxford — Witness has said that he saw Bergami and the Princess- in the cabinetto on board the polacre. When there, did he' see them in that cabinetto ? — When the bath was ready, he; went up stairs : he took her Royal Highness, and brought her down inlo the room, and shut the door. , Lord Duncan^ — When the witness iB asked, whether her Royal Highness was positively in the bath or riot, he says me does not know : when he is asked whether any other persons were there besides herself and Bergami, he says tliere were nor. (Cries of " No, 'no.") At any rate he says he did not see her there. I wish to ask him this question: he swears, then, that none of her female attendants were at that mcment in the bath-room with her Rdyal Highness ? — This I can swear i that I saw none rf them in fJie bath-room with her Royal Highness. > ' Was it to the door of the cabinetto, or to the door at the outside of the apartpient, tbat he took the water ?— Let the witness swear which— whether to the' outside door, or to the door of the inner room ? — I wras at the door when Bergami went up stairs to tell her Royal Highness that the bath was ready ; when.he came down, Bergami liold me; " Beat the door; for, if there be any need of water, you shall give it me." At which dbor ? Whether at the outer or the inner door ?— At the door of the bath — tlie- inner bath. Earl Grey. — Could the witness, from the position in which he stood, sea every body that was in the bath-room? — When it was open, I could : when it was shut, I could not. Will he swear that there- w,aS' nobody in that room but the Princess, and Bergami .? — I can swear, and do swear, that no other persons but Bergami- and her Royal Highness came into that' room, because I put myself at the door. , That is no answer., to my question, [The question and answer were here read again.] Does the witness mean to- say that nobody else was there, or .that nobody else entered there; because there is-a material difference between the two ? Does he mean that there was nobody elsein the room, or that nobody TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 123 else could be in the room without his seeing them ? — I saw no other persons but her Royal Highness and Bergami. That is still no distinct answer, Was it possible for any other person to bo in that room without your seeing him? — No, that could not be; for, if there had been another person there, I must have seen that person. Lord Auckland. — Did tho witness remain in the outer room during the time that the Princess and Bergami were in the inner one?— I remained at the door all that time. The Lord-Chancellor. — The witness yesterday stated, on being asked where the bath was prepared, that he prepared itin the cabinpf her Royal Highness, He was then asked who assisted her to the bath. He says, that he first car ried the water into the bath, and then called Bergami, who came down and put his hand into the bath to fry the temperature of the water ; that Bergami then went up stairs and conducted her Royal Highness down, after which thp door was shut ; and then Bergami and her Royal Highness remained alone in the cabinetto together. Now I wish hira to be asked, whether he vvas in the cabin while Bergami went up to bring her Royal Highness down ? and, while he was so in the cabin, at the time the door was shut, any one entered the cabinetto but her Royal Highness and Bergami ? [The interpreter here translated to the witness, from the short-hand writer's notes, the partofhis evidencereferred to, logelherwilh his Lordship's question; but it seemed impossible to render himself intelligible to the witness. The inter preter requested to be allowed to divide the question into three parts; and having been re-stated by his Lordship, he said]— There was nobody: I saw nobody. Earl Grosvenor. — Was there any other door by which persons could go into the room where this bath was put ? — I have not seen any other door.- Was there, or was there not, any other door ? — I never saw that there was any other door. Will you swear that there was no other ? — I have not seen one: I will swear that there was only one, because I must have seen it if there was any other. Ihe Lord Chancellor.— -If there had been another door opening into the room where the bath vvas prepared, must you not have seen it ? — 1 must have seenit if there had been another door ; but I have nol seen another there. Lord Auckland. — Have you seen Bergami and ihe Princess quit the bath ?-*- No; but I have seen Bergami come out of the room and mount the deck, and tell her women to come down and dress her Royal Highness, And I have with my own ears heard him say, " Mademoiselle Dumont, come down and-dress her Royal Highness,^ Leaving her Royal Highness, by herself, in the bath ?— Alone in the bath. What was your position vyhen Bergami left the bath ?— I vvas standing there with hot water ; because I thought he might still have need of hot water. Could you at that time see inlo the bath ? — No ; for Bergami went out side ways, making as little nbise as possible, and shut the door. How long had Bergami and the Princess been in the room before Bergami went tocall her maids ? — Aboiit half an hour. The JNlarquis of Huntley, — Was Bergami, on retiring from the biith, dressed in the same way as he was when he was observed to enter it ? — Yes. • The wiiness says he heard, wUh his own ears, Bergami Icli Miss Dnmorit to go and dress her Royal Hipihtiizss ; so it appeals t-hen the favmirite did not assist at her Majesty's toileUe.' But hoiW dfles this agree with the assertion of the Attorney-General, in his opening speech, about Bergami jilone assisting the Queen, at Naples, toput on an indecent jnasquerade- 124 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Earl Grey, — Did the witness remain with some watfer at the doo'r of the bath when Bergami went to call her maids to dress the Princess ? — I remained there till he told mo to go away. When did he tell you to go away ? — When he Avent up to go and tell Madlle. Dumont to come down, he told me that no more water was wanted. Did .you go away immediately, or wait till Madlle. Dumont came down stairs ? — Bergami remained upon deck. Madlle. Duraont came immediately, " subito," down stairs ; I took my pails away, and saw Madlle. Dumont alone enter the bath-room. Do you know how long the Princess remained in the bath-room after Madlle. Dumont went in to her ? — I cannot tell, because I went away about my business. When Mad. Duraont camedown, Bergami did not come down wilh her ? — No : I saw only Madlle. Dumont. Lord Anson. — On receiving your orders to that effect, did you go away to get the water, in order to be ready with it if Bergami should call you ? — I went nowhere, because there was a sailor who gave me the water at the door of the dining-room. Did Bergami receive the pails of water at the door of the dining-room, or did he come oui to receive them ? — Me received ihem at the door. He did ¦ not come out. The Earl of Darnley. The witness- has stated that a tent was placed upon the deck of llie-polacre; I wish lo know the nature of that tent, and the man ner in which it vvas placed ; and whether it was a tent or an awning ? — It was a tent, which was spread upoil the deck by means of ropes ; and in the evening' it was closed as a pavilion. (Here the witness described upon the table the position of the tent.) It was closed all round. I think thai, in the evening, this tent was let down and closed all round ; and they said from within, " Stop it well ; stop it all round ; see there be no hole, no opening." Was it a single canvass ? — Sometimes it was single, and sometimes other pieces of canvass were put to stop the openings. Earf Grosvenor. — Bv vvhom vvas the wiiness recommended to the service of her Royal Highness ? — By Bergami. Earl Grey. — Does the wiiness know whether the Princess was in the bath before Bergami left the room to call IMademoiselle Dumont ? — I do not know whether she was in the bath, because I did not look inlo the room. The Marquis of Lansduwn. — What was the motive of the wiiness for seekirtg at Pesaro to be discharged from the service of the Princess? — Because the Princess was surrounded by bad people, (A laugh.) The Earl of Carnarvon. — How was the Princess dressed when she went into the bathing-room with Bergami ? — As far as this goes, Nnn.mi ricordo. Was she in her ordinary dress, or in a bathing-dress? — I do not remember precisely vyhat dtoss she h^d on. What vvas the size of the bath ? — The witness described it as small. What furniture was in the room ? — I remember there vvas a sofa, a sofa- "bed or sofa, where, in the morning, we placed the cushions when we opened the bed. The Marquis of Lansdown wished lo put one more question (o the witness, in explanation of the question which he had last addressed lo him. The wit ness had stated that his reason for wishing to leave the service of the Princess at Pesaro was, that her Royal Highness was surrounded by 6ac?pfo;)fe ; why then, he wished to know, did he afterwards make application to -Schiavini TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 125 to be restored to that service? Had the witness, in the mean time, altered his opinion of the persons by vvhom the Princess was surrouiuled ? — I applied to Schiavini in a kind of common conversational vvay ; I asked if it wen? possible to enter again into the service of the Princess ; I applied in a kind of way. ¦ ' Then the witness meant nothing serious by his application ? — No ; it was a sort of conversational application, " Would it not be possible lo enter again into the service of the Princess ?" I was in service at the time. Lord Viscount Falmouth (from the gallery) would detain the House for a moment, upona point which to him appeared important. The witness had been asked if he knew whether the Princess was in the bath at the lime when he carried the water to the dooh To this question he had answered, " 1 cannot know." The witness had since asserted, that, when he car ried the water lo the bath, he could see that there was no other, person in the room besidts Bergami. Now he wished to know why the witness could not see if the Queen was in the bath, when he could see that no one else be sides Bergami was in the room. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the original question stood thus — " Do 30U know whether, at the lime you so carried the water, the Princess was in the bath ?" The answer given by the witness was, '' I cannot know." If the wiiness had said that he did not know whether the Princess was then in the room, there would have been a contradiction ; but at present there appeared to him (Lord Lauderdale) to 6e no contradiction.* Lord Viscount Falmouth was sorry to occupy the time of the House ; but he thought the point was of considerable moment. The witness a quarter of an hour before had staled, that when he carried the water which Bergami, half- opening the door, took in, if any other person had been in the room he must have seen such person. The Earl of Liverpool saw no apparent contradiction at present. The fact he took to be this: — The witness prepared the bath, and saw Bergami ahd the Princess go into the balhing-room. The question then put to the wiiness was did you see the Princess in the bath ? The witness answered, I could not see, because after they went in the door was shut. The subsequent question, " Was any other person in the room ? applied to the time when the door was afterwards opened; and the witness answered, that there was no one in>fhe room. Whether the story told by the witness was or was not to be credited, was another question ; there did not seem to be any contradiction at present. Lord Erskine understood the witness to say, that if any other person had been in the room, he must have seen ihera. • With all due deference, my lord, there does appear some contradiction. If Signor Majrocfti could not see into the room suflicientty (which he admits he could not) to discern whether the Princess was in or out of the bath, how the devil could he tell whether other persons might not be in the room besides Bergami? How could he swear ,that the C-iuntess of Oldi, or other of her Majesty's female attendants, were not there. But his whole evidence on the bathing-story is full of contradiction and perplexity. Yesterday he admitted tliere were other rooms adjoining the cabinetto, and with which the cabinetto might coniiliunicate, and into which Bergami might relire while the Printfess was hi the bath. Taking all the evidence on the bath together, it is probable that the following has been the real slate of the case : — j^ergarai and the Princess went into the cabinetto together ; a sailor stood at the outer door of the dming-room and Majochi at the inner door, at the cabinetto, to copvey water ; when the Princess and Bergami had adjusted the temperature of the bath, then Bergami dismissed the sailor and Signor Majochi, went upon deck himself, where he remained, and sent do'.vii Madamoiselle Dumont not to dress, but to undress aud attend ou the Queen in the batii. 1?^ TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Lord Viscount Falmouth, — Exactly so. / The Lord Chancellor thought tbat if their Lordships looked at the relative situations of the bath and of the room, they would find there had been no con tradiction,* Lord Viscount Falmouth pressed his, opinion. Several of the questions and answers were then read by the short-hand writer, from which it appeared that the witness had used these words — " If there had been any other person in the room, I must have seen ihem." Lord Viscount Falmouth conceived, that those words applied to the time at which the witness carried the pails of water lo the door; and that the former evidence referred to tlie saqie period. Surely if the witness could see that there was no one else in the room, BV. MUST have seen the bath. 'Phe Eaifl of Carnarvon, thought, that the answers referred to different per-ipds- Lord Viscount Falmouth acquiesced. Lord De Dunstanville, ^r^ov oftpn did ih^ witness sleep between the tvi'O tents ? — I remember twice. Do you remember at either lime hearing any conversation between two persons inside ? — Yes. ' Could you distinguish the voices ?-r-I could not distinguish the voices; but I heard a whisper. PouJd you hear whether the vpice was that of a male or of a female ?-r- I heard two voices speak in a whisper ; but I could not make out whether they were the voices tif women or of men. Mr. Brougham submitted, that he was entitled, through the medium of the Jjprd Chancellor, to put certain questions to the witness. The Tord Chancellor, ^-i^o doubt. Examined by the Lord Chancellor, at Mr. Brougham's suggestion. — The wjfness has staled, that he was in place at the time when he had the conver- $ations which he mentioned with Schiavini: what wages did he then receive ? — rrThe witness was stating, that he had been at that period in the employ of tlie young Marquis Onischaiti, \yhoa Mr. Brougham said, that they had the point already. Did you not make repeated applications to leronimus to be taken back into the service of the Prinpess? — Questo non mi ricordo, DiM you npt, five or six times, make applications to Cameron lobe restored to the service of her Royal Highness ? — The first or second time that Cameron ?am,^ to MUan, he sent his servant for me. I went, and Cameron said, " Theodore Majochi," (and I' remember it as well as if it were but now,) " Theodore Majochi, do nol enter into any service, because the Princess will take you back." The conversation must be put down as it vvas said. Cameron said, " Theodore^ give me back the certificate of your good service, and. I will tell the Princess that you have not entered inlo any other service; and she will pay you for all the time you have been out of service, and all ihe damage you have suffered." I answered, " Cameron, give me back my paper, (which I had given him, already in talking;) for, rather than serve ihe * The Lord Chancellor thinks there is, no contradiction. Yes, my lord, but we shall take your thinking and opinions very donbtingly in this business. You have a great slake in ilie issue of- the trial. If the Bill of Pains and Penalties be not passed you will most probably Iiave to descend from the woolsack, and to ascend it may not be proper to say where. It was . from the ingenious quibbles and precedents of this noble Lord that a list at witnesses, and almost eve.r^ tbing dae in faVout of her Majesty, were refused. TEIAL Ol'' TUK QUKEN. 127* Vrinccii, on account of the persons who arc about her, I would go and eAt GR.VSS."* Was thii conversation with old Cnineron ? — Yes. Did you at any other lime npply to Cameron to be reinstated in your ser vice ? — Mi ricordo di non : nnn, non. Do yoti know if Cumeroii was examined at Milan ? — Of this I know nothing. The Earl of Lauderdale wij-hed to know whether this conversation with Cameron at JNlilan took place before witness went lo Vienna, or after his return ? — Before I went. The witness retired. SECOND WITNESS. The Attorney-General then called Gaetuno Palurto. The witness was a man rather of a shabby appearance, and apparently about 30 years of age. Mr. Denman desired to know what religion rlie witness professed ? — CatholitJ. An apostolic Roman. \ Mr. Denman wished to be told when the witness had last taken the sacra ment, lie should be abie to sluDvv that, .according to the religion professed ' by the vvitnc^^, no oath vvas binding unless taken within a certain time after confession, and after receiving the sacrament. JNIi", Denman's objection was overruled. The wiiness was then sworn, and examined by the Attomey-'G'eheral. The Lord Chancellor. — Have the goodness to keep Up yi!>ur voicei- Mr.- Attorney-General, and let the witness keep up his. What countryman are you ? — I am of Naples. What is your occnpation ? — I am captain ui a merchant Vessel. Have you a share in the vessel you command ? — I have. \V'hat share ? — One- fourth. Were you, in the month of April, I8I6, mate of a ship commanded by Garguini GuardeUol — I was. What uas the size of that vessel f — .'^botit 300 tons. Do you remember the Princess of Wales coming on board that ship at Augustaj in Sicily ? — Yes. To what place did the vessel first sail from Augusta? — ToGirgenti; and frora thence to Tunis. Do ypu remember the names of tho persons who accompanied the Princess on board \ — Almost all. Mention the names of those whom you remember.— There was B. Bergami, Schiavini, William Austin, Theodore, Carlino, and a cook whom they called Francis. .Any females f — Yes. Who wer? they? — There vvas the Countess Oldi; I believe, but I do not recollect well, she vvas dame d'honneur ; two maid servants, one vvas called Dumont, and the other Brunetta ; and a little child called Victorine. When you first sailed from Augusta lo Tunis, do you remember the situa tion of the cabins appropriated for the sleeping rooms of the Princess and * Oh, "Signor Majochi, Majochi ! then your mrluous soul was so hurt at seeing the Princess surrounded with bait people that you had rather " eat grass" than behold itC But pray. Sigtior, if you then felt such intense grief at the Queen's misfortune of being surrounded with bad people^ how comes i^that you are i»o'w ready to swear away the life of her- Majesty hy false evideiice. Is il the money and good feeding of Lord SriiWAHr at Vienna, urlhe rui/a/ya-i-e at Cotton-garden that has wrought tliis'altci-Li'.ioii .' l-£8 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. the Countess of Oldi ?— The cabin of the ship was divided into two. On the right hand was the bed of the Princess'; oil the left that of the Countess of Oldi. OiiSside that cabin vvas there a dining-room .? — There was. Do you know where Bergami's sleeping cabin was at that time? — I do. Where ?-^ln the first cabin on the right, immediately beyond the dining- room. [Here the witness described the relative situations of the cabins/&c. upon ihe'table. This vvas the body of the ship; the tWo lateral parts are divided into small cabins. One of these small cabins, most near lo the poop and to the dining-room, vvas that appropriated to Bergami.] Did the dining-room extend the whole breadth of the ship ? Mr. Denman objected lo what he considered a leading question. The Attorney-General WAS not aware that he had transgressed the strict rules of examination : he wished to keep within them. Mr. Denman thought that thequeslion ought to be, " To what point does the dining-room extend ?" The question, as the Attorney-General put it, ad mitted of an immediate ansvver, which, at the same time, it suggested — Yes. The Attorney-General trusted that he should nol be precluded from asking a question merely because it might be ansvvered by the word " Yes." The Lord Chancellor put the question, then, in this way. — Did or did not the dining-room extend the vvhole length of the ship ? The interpreter professed himself un/lble to put the question in that shape. He must ask. Did the dining-room extend from side to side, yes or no ? ^v., Denman would certainly pbject to the question in that form. The Lord Cliancellor. — Take this ihen, How much of the bieadth of the ship did the dining-room occupy ? — The whole, except the wooden line used for the cleanliness of the ship : the whole breadth. Examined by the Attorney-General. — After leaving Tunis, did Bergami con tinue to sleep in his own cabin, or did he continue to sleep in another part of the vessel ? Mr. Denman objected to the form of the question. After leaving Tunis, did you sail for any other place ? — We sailed for Malta. After leaving Tunis, did Bergami sleep in the same cabin as before, or in another part of the vessel ? — His bed was removed to the dining-room, and was probably, especially, particularly, on the right hand of the dining-room. A noble Lord wished to know which of those expressions particularly or probably applied. / The interpreter could not translate the Italian idiom in one word. He gave the various words, and iheir Lordships might select. Was ibis right-hand side of the dining-room nearer lo the cabin of the Princess than the left, or farther from it? — As the cabin of the Princess was on the right-hand side, it was more near. The room occupied by the Princess had a door which led into the dining-room ; .and another door of communi cation with the chamber of the dame d'honneur. Was that communication lo the room of the dame d'honneur from within the chamber of the Princess ? — YeSv; the chamber of the Princess was divided into two chambers ; ope for the Princess, and the other for the dame ^d'honneur : -It vvas divided by a painted canvass. When Bergami leli Tunis,\vhere did he fleep ? — On the right of the dining- room — more- particularly on the right. Was the bed of Bergami removed on ihat occasion ? — Yes, it was removed to'the light s^de of the dining-room. When the dodr was closed, there was TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ' 129 no possibility of seeing from one bed to another. There was a communica tion from ihebed-chaiuber of the Princess to tho chamber of the dame d'honneur. How vvas that part of the ship laid «uii ? — The chamber of the Princess vvas divided into two chambers; one for thu dame d'k.nneur, the other for the Princess. How far from Bergami's bed vvas the door leadilig lo the chamber of the, Princess ? — Part of the chamber of the Princess vvas formed by the partition of the ship : in that a door vvas made, and at a proper distance frora the door was situated Bergami's bed. The door being open, could a person in the Princess's bed see Bergami's bed ? — Witness. Why not ? According; to the division made, in whatever situation a person was, in Bergami's bed, he could not help seeing the Princess's bed when the door was open. The situation of the beds was such, that a person could not fail to see both together. 'Ihe witness afterwards added: — Hut a person might stand up ip the bed in such a situation as nol lo be able to see the other bed. I mean, if he placed himself upright. But the bed itself might see the bed of the Princess. (A laugh,) How many doors were there from the passage which the witness describes to run along between the two sides of the bed-room ? how many doors were there from that passage into the dining-room ? — No answer. The witness has stated, as I understood him, that ihe body of the ship was divided inlo three divisions; on each side there were cabins, and a passage in the middle, communicating with the dining-room : now, how many doors led from that passage into the dining-room ? — Two doors opened into it. After the ship sailed from Tunis, were those doors closed? — Yes, they were shut; one was nailed up. After that, was there one entrance, or more, into the dining-room from that passage ? — There vvas only one; rhe other door. Where did the ship go from Tunis ? — To Malta, and thence to the island of Milo. , Where did you proceed afterwards? — After much voyage v^'e went to St. Jean d 'Acre. Where did the Princess go frora St. Jean d'Acre ? — To Jerusalem; to visit the holy place. Did the witness accompany the Princess on her journey lo Jerusalem ? — Yes; I went to Jerusalem. During that journey, did the party travel by night or by day? — We tra velled the whole of the night, and part of the day ; but the other part of the day,- it being then very hot, we rested ourselves. When you rested by day, were any tents erected? — Not always. At Nazareth we lodged at a private house; but, when we were going towards Jerusalem, we raised our wnts near a convent. In what tent did Bergami resl? — When the tents were raised, we dined also; and in one of these tents vvas the Princess. In that tent was im mediately placed an iron travelling bedstead, a small one, and Upon a piece of matting was put the bed in the tent.. Bergami and the Princess there dined : I saw nothing else, for I then went to dine myself. Does the witness know who slept in that tent ? — The Princess, I know, be cause it was intended for her : but as to any, other person I do not know, for I went to dine myself. ' Does he know where Bergami then slept ? Mr. Denman objected to this question. The witness had stated that hewas 19 130 TRIJVL OF THE QUEEN. in a situation which prevented him from knowing ihe fact referred to,- and thereforCjthe question could not be put. The Attorney-General argued, that it was quite regular to ask the witness whether he knew where Bergami slept at that time. Mr. .Denman, — I don't object to the question itself, but to the moment at which it was asked, when, in consequence of what the wiiness had stated, he is disqualified, from answering it. The Attorney-General. — Does the witness know where pergami slept during the day \yhen they rested ? — I do not know. The wjtness not appearing to comprehend the question, the interpreter ex-, pressed a, desire that it should be again repealed by the learned counsel. (Cri^s of « No, no:"). The interpreter said, that his mind was so taken up with translating every word that occurred, that he could not repeat the whole of the sentence on the moment. "Fbe, question was then renewed, and the witness answered : — I positively, caatiot know wheie Bergami' slept, because I left bim and the Princess, and went. to my, victuals. I imagine Mr. Denman interposed. — A complete answer has been given to the question, and any speculation the witness may follow it up wilh, as to his belief or his iniagjiiiatiop, cannot be received. "TheAttorn^-General. — The point, as to the propriety or impropriety of this interrcjgatory, cannot be entertained until the whole of the question is received.; But my learned friend, without waiting forgit, breaks in, and inter rupts the witness before your Lordships know what the answer may be. .Th^ .Loj-4 Chcfncpllor. — You certainly ought to know what the ansvver is before you object to it. ; Mr. Denman reiterated his objection. The Lord Chancellor. — It is impossible to proceed in this way. Unless we know the nattire of the answer as well as the interpreter does before he inter prets it, how can we decide on it ? The^ constitutional mode is, if an answer is not evidence, to strike it out. Mr. Denman. — Your Lordships know that the eflfect is prodiiced the mo ment the answer js given. The Lord chancellor, — Consider the slate we are in. If you will not let the interpreter give the ansvver, as be is sworn to do, how can we know whether it be fit to be received or not ? ¦ Lord Erskine said a few words, but they vvere inaudible below the bar. The Lord Chancellor, — Let the interpreter give us the answer. The question was then repeated, and the interpreter proceeded to that part the answer where the word " imagino' occurred, when ,i Mr. Denman again interposed. Their Lordships, he said, knew that, iu a court of justice, if> instead of taking the statement from an interpreter, they examined the witness himself, and he answered that he did not knovy some particular. point, but that he guessed or imagined some circumstance relative- to whicb a question might be asked if tbe preceding interrogatory had been answered in the affirmative, the -counsel appearing in such a case would not do his duty to his client if he, did, not instantaneously interpose, and, prevent the witness from proceeding. In any court whatsoever he concefved thesame course should be followed, and that the counsel, when a. circumstance of that nature occurred, ,was bound to bid tjie witness shut hiS mouth. Here, when TRIAL OF THE QUBElJ. 131 a word was interpreted " I imagine,*' it was absolutely necessary for him to interpose to prevent the whole of the answer being received. The Lord Chancellor. — I think the interpreter could not be Stopped in giving the answer of the wiiness, until it appeared, from so much of the interpreta tion as he had made, that the witness was about to state something of imagi- tion or opi^nion. (Hear.) -I think it now appears tbat what the witness was abQut to state was a matler of imagination, and not what had come to his knowledge. The answer cannot therefore be received. (Hear,) Inter preter, be so good as to state to the wiiness that he must speak only to facts wbicb he knows. The interpreter immediately complied with the Lord Chancellor's desire. The examinalioiv then proceeded. Has the witness ever seen Bergami reposing under any other lent f — No. : When witness was at Jerusalem, was he present at the church there during the performance of any ceremony ? — I was. Was the Princess there ? — She was. Who else were present at the ceremony ? — Bergami, Austin, Schiavini, and sorae oihei-s of the Princess's suite, who were made Knights of the Sacred Sepulchre. Was it a religious ceremony ? — It was. The order was conferred on those who visited the Holy Sepulchre. Do you. know whether any other order was conferred on Bergami whilst he was at Jerusalem ? — I know of none at all. Did you remain af Jerusalem with the Princess, or return before her to Jaffa ? — 1 went to Jaffa before her. Did the Princess and her suite embark at Jaffa on board the same ship that brought them ?— They did. After they left Jaffa, was any tent raised on the deck of the vessel ? — There- . was. Was that lent closed at night ? — Yes, it was. Was there any sofa or bed placed under that tent^? — Yes, there was some sofa, and a small bed. . '' How were the sofa and bed placed under that lent ?— They were placed at a little distance, to make a passage. Ha« the witness ever assisted in closing that tent at night ? — Yes; I have. Who was in the tent at the time you assisted in closing it ? — The Princess, Bergami, and some person belonging to her household. . Do you know who remained in that tent during the night ?— Those who re mained under the tent I don't know; but the servants who were in the tent came qut of it. I saw them on deck, and stopped them. I don't know who remained iinder the tent, because it had a communication . az^so below; dhd whetber the Princess went-out, I don'tknow. -^ ¦- Have yoii ever seen the tent raised up in the morning? — I have seen il. Who have you seen under it, or have you seen any persons under that lent, when it was so, raised up in the morning ? — For the most part I have seen -the Princess lying on the sofa, and Bergami on the bed. Someiimes not. When you have seen Bergami so lying on' the bed, how was he dressed ? — In his usual dress-^a cloak (capotfo). The witness afterwards further, explained. It was not a cloak; it was a species of inorning-goivn, with large sleeves (toga). Have you ever knovvri the tent to/be closed during the day ? — I have; ' For Jiow long? — A little time; half an hour, or an hour. 132 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Who was under the tent when it was closed by day ?— The same as in the evening, when the tent was closed. - . . I again ask,who was under the tent when it was closed by day ?* — The Princess, Bergami, and some person belonging to the servants, who assisted in closing the tent. Did that person who assisted in closing the tent remain under it, or come out of it ? — Many times I have seen that person, the servant, come out; but other limes, when I was employed in the business of the ship, I do not know whether he came out or remained. ' Do you know by whose directions the tent has been closed on these occa sions? — .Sometimes by the direction of Schiavini, but always by one of ber Royal Highness's people. Have you ever seen the Princess and Bergami walking together bn the deck ? — I have. In what manner ? —Arm in arm.-\ Have you ever seen them on the deck when they have not been walking ? — I have. In what situation have you seen them then ? — In various situations ; different situations. Describe some of them. — I have sometimes seen them sitting on a gun, with the hand and arm of one behind the back of the other, because the gun WAH too small.' They were supporting each other with their arms. Some times Bergami was lying on his back on a small bed, and the Princess .sitting near to the bed, leaning Upon it. When the captain saw me, on those occa sions, he vvould make some excuse, sometimes this, someiimes that, to send me away, because we were distant relations. [The Interpreter observed, that the witness's expression was " mezzo parente," the literal meaning of which vvas half-relations, but he had translated it distant relations.] You say you have seen the Princess and Bergami sitting on a small bed ; have you ever seen them silling in any other situation? — I have. In what situation have you seen them ? — Sometimes I have seen Ber gami silting on a bench near to the mainmast, and the Princess sitting in his lap, with her arm round his neck over his shoulder. How was Bergami's arm placed on that occasion ?— Bergami's arm was behind the back of the Princess, and the arm of the Princess was round the neck qf Bergami, i You have stated that there vvere a sofa and a bed placed under that tent; where was the bed taken from when was it placed there ? — A small iron bed came on board when the Princess came, for her use. Do you know before the lent was erected, where that bed was placed ? — * How could the witness know who were under the tent, seeing he had just stated that the tent communicated with the interior of the vessel? ff Most probably the Princess supported herself on his arm, to counteract the rolling of the vessel. What lady is there, even among home-bred Englishwomen that would scruple, ' on walking, on the deck of a ship at sea, to lean on the arm of an upper servant of her house hold. Ministers must be hard run for topics of accusation when such circumstances as these are adduced as evidence of criminality. But even this is not so puerile as when it is alleged,. among the grave charges against her Majesty, that Bergami took hold of the Queen's hand while she rode upon an ass, and that the chevalier even lifted her upon the ass by the waist ! What- horrible crimes and misdemeanors I t Very well. Queen Elizabeth frequently rode through the city of London with, her arm round the Lord Chamberlain's waist, and yet no one thought of charging her with an " odii&rous intercourse" with that oificer. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 133 First, concerm'ng the nature of the bed : — the legs were of iron, and a piece of canvas was placed over it, without boards. At the beginning, when we began to make a tent to procure shelter from tho sun, then the Princess order ed the sofa to rest herself on, as a bed ; and then, also, from her luggage, ¦was brought forward that small iron bed. Do you, in the course of your voyage, remember St. Bartholomew's day? —I do. State whether any thing particular took place during that ilay. — During that day there was general mirth through the whole vessel among the captain and crew. During the evening, afterwards, dishes vvere decked with lights ,to make an illumination all over the ship, and liquor was given to all the sailors, to drink, by the orders of Bergami. A dollar each was given to them. All the crew danced, and cried, " Long live St. Bartholomew ! Long live the Princess ! Long live the Chevalier ! " I would ask, when Bergami came on board at Jaffa, whether he wore any other order but that of St. Sepulchre 1 — When he returned from Jaffa, he and several of the Princess's suite appeared with a new order. What was that order called 1 — The order of St. Caroline. Cross-examination. Cross-examined by Mr. Denman. — Name the persons, who, of her Majesty's household, wore those orders? — Bergami, Austin, the Doclor,two English offi cers who waited on her Royal Highness, and one or two other persons. Had not every who had been at Jerusalem with her Royal Highness this order of St. Caroline? — Not all ; only six or seven persons. Where do you usually live ? — I am fixed at Messina, because my falher is a pilot there. What is his name ? — Giovanni Battista Palurzo. What business or trade is he? — He is first pilot lo the Royal Navy of Na ples. He is of the degree and rank of an officer. I suppose the witness is not himself married ? — I am not. Have you always gone by the same name ? — Yes, certainly ; I never changed my name. Was your name well known on board the ship you have been speaking of? — Yes, certainly, by all the crew, who knew me lo be the pilot. How many persons did the crew consist of ? — We vvere 22, Were they all constantly employed in managing the ship 1 — The crew was employed both to manoeuvre the ship, and for the service of the Princess, as I was employed myself. Have you seen any of them lately? — I have seen the'captain. What is his name ? — Vincente Bengiuno. Have you seen none of the qrew within this week ? — I have not. Have you seen any of them within this half-year ? — Two months ago I saw one of the sailors. During the la.st six months, as Messina is a thoroughfare, I have seen some of them there on board other vessels. What4s the name of the man you have seen within the last two months ? — Giuseppe Arbono. Where did you see him ? — ^At Messina. Was the gun which you have spoken of on deck ? — It was on dock. You speak of a communication between the tent and the interior of the vessel : where was it ? — The door -was exactly under the tent. Where was the bed of which you have spoken ? — It was on deck, near that door. Had not the crew access lo all parts of the ship at all times t—As ioon 134 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. as the tent was closed, nobody could pass the :place occupied by it : but all other parts of the deck they could go to. , Were you ever at Milan? — ^Yes; now,, in my v«ay here. Did you come to England by Milan? — Yes I went from Messina to Naples by sea ; from Naples I went to Milan ; from Milan to Paris ; from Paris to Dieppe: from Dieppe to Brighton ; and from Brighton, hy land,- to London. Was that the first lime you had been at Milan ? — Yes. ¦ Who first applied to you to come here, for this business? — The English Vice-Consul at Messina. When was it ?— On the 22d, 23d, ,24th, 25th, and 26th of the. last month, July. ¦ ' Was that the first time you was desired to give evidence on this subject ? — ¦ Yes. Did you go the Consul, or the Consul come to you ? — The Consul sent for me, because he had been charged to doao by the Minister at Naples. What are you to have for coming here ? — For what I have lost it will be very little indeed. What is it that you are to have ?— I, for coming here, must receive, as a a fpmpensAtionfor the ship and trade I am obliged to give up, 800 dollars per MONTH.* ' [This statement created a general buz through the House.] The interpreter stated that the rate of the dollar varied. The usual rate was 4s. 3d. or 4s. 4d. He recollected it as high as 4s. 6d; but the ave rage is 4s. 3d. rThe short-hand writer was here called on to read the answer to the last question, which he did.] ¦ Have you paid, any travelling expenses ? — I have paid Tiothing, because I came accompanied by a couriei-. I was obliged, of coarse, to come; because the Minister applied to the Consul, and the Consul told me, if I did not go, I wodld be obliged (obligando) to go by means of the government ; otherwise I was not willing to do so. Who is the courier that accompanied you ? — From Naples to Milan I was accoinpanied by Nicola— —, and from Milan here I was accompanied by Mr. Grouse. How did you come from Naples to Milan? — In a carriage. Was it a stage'-coach or a diligence? — It was a carriage hired for two by tbe courier. . Could any other persons take a seat in it? — These questions are useless. I saw the horses changed ; the minister gave me in charge to one courier, and he to another. So, the minister gave you to one courier, and that one consigned you to another who brought you here ? Is it not so ? — This courier brought me to Milan, and there Colonel Brown gave me in charge to Mr^ Grouse, who brought me here. How did Col. Brown come to givip you in charge to Mr. Grouse P'^Thecou- ' rier brought a letter from the minister to Colonel Brown, at. Milan. . . • EtgfcS hundred dollars a month! about .^2000 or ^£2100 a-vear, tesicles travelling expenses and maintenance daring his journey 4nd residence here.' "f his is jtretty Well for the mate of 3 trading-vessel, and is higher pay than is given to any of our ofllem in tbe4iritay ot navy for serving their coontry. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. i .'^,5 How long were you at Milan? — I have nol my memorandum book in my pocket : perhaps two or three days. Where did you live these two or three days?— At an, inn. How often did you see Colonel Brown there? — First when I gave the letter to him, and again when I took leave to set out. Did you see a person of the name of ? (We could not catch the name) — I do not know any one of that name : this is the first time it ever reached ray ear. Did you see any person take down vvhat you said when you were examined T — Y'es, at Milan. What was that person called ? — There were present Col. Brown, two other persons, the person who wrote, and myself, making fiv«. Did Col. Brown put questions to you? — Yes, like this person -(the inter preter.) Were you sworn on tlie cross of Christ ? — I was not^ because I was not asked. Were you sworn at all at Milan ? — -Not at all. Were you examined at Naples before you set out ? — No. How did you travel with Mr. Grouse from Milan to Paris? — In a carriage- also. Were you and Mr."Grouse alone in it ? — I and Mr. Grouse and the post-boys. What sort of a carriage was iti— It was a calash, with four wheels and two seats. When did you arrive in London ? — Yesterday. How long did you remain in Paris? — We arrived there in the morning and' set out at night. In the course of tbat day did you see any person at Paris thattalked to you on this subject ? — No, not with regard to the depositions. Did they ask you any questions about what you were to say against her Rosyal Highness ? — No, for that would have been the same tbat I have now said. I wish to ask if any person talked with you at all at Paris on the subject of what you vvere to say about the Princess ? — No : at Paris 1 was so short that I bad hardly sufficient lime lo rest, as we were travelling post. Were you never examined on this subject before you left Messina for Milan ? — No. On what day did you arrive at Paris ? — (The interpreter,, after communi cating the question, stated to their Lordships that the witness had asked him what day this was, and that he had told him it was Wednesday, butnotbing- more.) No ansvver. How, many days is it ago ? — I can't tell. Do you mean lo say that you can't tell whether you were at Paris last week ? — (After a long pause) last Saturday : Saturday,, last week. Were you examined since you came to England ? — Yes. , . Before you came to this house ? — Yes. Have you. been brought to this place before you came as a witness? — No, When wereyou examined here ? — Yeste.rda y. Do you know the name of the gentleman who examined you ?-^No, You were not sworn, I suppose, yesterday ? —No.. Where have youifaeeUi since your arrival ?— There, where, allthe rest are? in a place down below, from which there. was communication With tbis room;' Who are the rest to whom you allude f — All the persons there. 136 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Who are they ?— I have not had the curiosity to label them. (A laugh.) How many are there? — I don't know. Do you mean to say you don't know whether there are ten, or ten times ten?— Ten times ten raake a hundred, if I understand arithmetic. I beg to know whether in the, place from which you came to this room there are six persons? — Whether there are six or more I don't know : I don't know more than three, ,lhe captain, Theodore, and the cook. Where did you stop last night ? — In my chamber. Who were with you ? — The captaisj, Theodore, and the cook. Did any person besides these three sup with you? — First of all I took lea. In that room there were five, the captain, Theodore, and three others. Were, there no more ? — I paid no attention. Did you sup together afterwards — I took no supper. last night; I took tea. On what day did you come over ? — Yesterday I arrived here, which was Tuesday. On Monday I left Dieppe, and on Monday evening I reached Brighton. This closed the cross-examination by Mr. Denman. Mr. Brougham said he ought to state to their Lordships, with regard to the cross-examination of -the last witness — and what indeed applied equally lo both the witnesses examined — his hope that they would not consider the cross- examination closed when the witness " retired, but that their Lordships, in compliance with her Majesty's petition, would allow the witnesses to be re called at any future period if necessary. Such permission their Lordships would perceive to be essential to the ends of justice, when it vvas remembered that there were witnesses of vvhom her Majesty's counsel had never even heard the names? The Lord Chancellor said, that with regard to that application, the House would of course be regulated by a sense of justice, and by the occasion that could be shown for such an indulgence. Mr. Brougham was well aware that the House would in all its decisions act in conformity to the dictates of justice ; but he had thought it his duty to make this observation, that their Lordships might not go away with the idea that he and his learned friends had finished their cross-examination. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. Have you a share in a ship at Messina ? — Yes ; I left the vessel at Messina." What size of a ship ? — 269 tons. We're not 806 dollars a month paid you as demurrage ? — ' Mr. Denman objected to this question, and wished the one on which it vvas founded to be read. The short-hand writer said he had sent away the book containing that question: but he repealed from memory the substance of the question and of the answer as follows : — What are you to have for coming here ? — I must have as a compensation for giving up my ship and trade 800 dollars a month. The Attqfney-General, — I wish to ask if that is more than an adequate compensation for coming here, in consequence of your ship being unemploy ed ? — I want to know whether you mean a compensation for my ship being unemployed, or for myself. Mr. Brougham. — That is his answer. Attorney-General. — I ask if that is more than an adequate compensation for your ship being unemployed ?— The 800 dollars are not so much for the mere hiring of the ship, because we do not consider the hire of the ship for TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 137 carrying goods so much as what we could make by our trade ; for the owners allow us to trade for ourselves, and we may eith,ur gain or lose. Are 800 dollars a month an adequate compensation for your trade?— I cannot tell ; for if my speculation were to succeed, I mii^lit gain a great deal more, and if it were to fail, I might lose a great deal more. By Earl (rrey. — Where'is your .ship now ? — I left her at Messina. Wasit about lo sail on any other^ voyage ? — No. M,ust it remain unemployed during your absence ? — I don't know. Is it possible it may be sent any where by the other proprietors in the usual course of trade ? — Why, nol; because th,cn they must put in another captain, and that would injure my business. Then am I to understand that the 800 dollars a month are a compensation for your absence, and not for the ship being unemployed ? — For leaving the ship, and neglecting my own trade. ' Are you to have any share of the profits of the ship during your absence ? — A fourth part of the profits of the ship are my own, which is to be given me after deducting the ship's expenses^; but 1 am not to have any share of >the private trade. Are you, then, to have a share for the freight, or for the merchandize, or for both ?— Not for the merchandize, because I am not present. How many sailors were there usually on deck at night, during the voyage from Jaffa? — Half of the crew for four hours, and the other half were at rest.. Am I, then, lo understand, that there were never fewer than 10 or 11 men upon deck ?— When the weather was bad, ajl the crew vvere upon deck, but there were never fewer than iO or 11. Are these men in the habit of walking up and down the deck ? — Except the man at the helm, and those whp went down to look after the horses, they did walk up and down the deck. Was there a passage by which they could walk past the lent ? — The lent occupied little more than one-half the breadth of the ship. " Was there a passage by the side of the tent from one end of the ship to the other ? — On one side of the tent there was no passage, because it reached to the .side of the ship; but on the other side there vvas a passage. Were the men ii? the habit of passing the tent in the night time,? — Whenever there was occasion -for the men to pass in woiking the ship, they did pass, but -otherwise they remained on the forecastle. By the Marquis of Lansdown. — You have said, that the captain occasionally ordered you- to remove from the deck, when he and the Princess and Bergami were on deck: where did you go to on these occasions ? — According to what tbe captain ordered.me. Did he order you to go below, or where ?-*Sometimes he told me to go to the cabin, and sometimes to the forecastle, to take care the sailors did not make a noise in the ship. Was there any other person near that part of the deck where the Princess's tent was placed, but Bergami and the Princess ?— A division was made by the great boat. Whereabouts were the gun and the bench of which you have spoken ? — The gun, as well as the bench, was in the middle of the ship. - At the time you were, on some pretence or other, directed by the captain to remove from that part of the deck where her Rbyal Highness, Bergami, and the captain were, were there any other persons remaining near to .the captain 20 138 TRIAL OF THE /QUEEiW. in tbat pairt of the vessel? — As soon as I -went a^vay, I could not see^wbat was passing there. ['This question was read over agdn to the witness,- bat die Made no altera tion in his answer.] Were any other persons suffered to remain on that part of tihe deck from- which you were sent avvay ?,-— B©fope I went away, or after? Before you went away ?— At -tbe moment I went awaysomethii^ was -or dered for me to do, and I could not pay attention to what was done, or to who remained. Was the weather calm or stormy at jthe time when yo« saw "her Rcyal Highness and Bergami reclining on the gun? — If it -had (been .Stormy, th^ Would not have remained :on deck: it was summer-time, aind fine weather :- one day we had a storm, and they did not Come up. On thai occasion was there much motion in the .vessel when they reelitied dn the gun ?— During summer ithere are only ligbtiairs, and they are followed bycahns; there is very little motion, and it was calm when they were-Silting there. By Lord Rosebery. — On the voyage to Jaffa, the witness states thait there wasa communication below from the tent: did ihatcommunication go to any other part of the ship, or only to a particular place, from vvhencelhere was no exit but through the tent? — I will describe it. [The witness !ook pen, ink, and paper, for the purpose.] ' " ., I wish to know whether the communication you speak of was to any cither part of the ship, and, if so, to what part?-r-[The witness drew aronigh pllaintof the deck of the ship, which vvas explained by the interpreter to several peers near the bar. The witness pointed out some steps -that kd down into (the dining-rooin.] Then, when the tent was so placed, was it possible for any person to get into the dining-room, excepting through the tent? — There was another pklce which I marked. By Lord Aucltlarid,-i— Had Theodore Majochi any particular place assigned him in the ship ? — Yes. Where? — He bad a hammock in the bold ; but whereverhewtis more easy, there he placed himself. ^ 'Could he from his sleeping-place possibly hear what, in the course of the night, passed in the tent? — When he sleptin the hold I believe nol, because the .floise must have passed through -two decks. By another Peer. — Did Theodore Majochi sleep habitually an the -hold, or betVveen decks? — '[No answer was given to this question.] Did he sleep in the dining-room ? — ^I do not know. , By Lord Elknbarough,— "Where did Bergami sleep iu the voyage from Jaffa ? . — There ^ere two bed* 'in -the tent, and when the tent was open it was-seeii that the small one was Bergami's,- and the sofa was the Prinoess'-s. When •the tent ^as closed,. I had no-communioation withithe pa-rt of the the Princess and iBergami steptin the tent, be cause there 'were horses on board, which made a great deal of noisey aiidiUiey said tbey codld not bear to sleep below. Wh^re Were the beds placed, nsed'bytbe Princess and Ber^mi, during the GAtAfo'p ''''' t!'"' accurately reduced frora those given into the House of LoTdrb^ Gaetano Paturzo. Mate of the Vessel, and sworn to by hira as correct, August 23, 1820. (These Plans are tlie same as appeared in the " Traveller" Newspaper, August 30.; UPPER DECK, On which was erected Her Majesty's Tent. EXPLANATION. The Dotted Lines describe the Tent. 1 . Represents the Queen's Sofa, or Squab. Which of the parts numbered 2 S was the iron Bedstead does not appear from the Evidence. LOWER DECK, Immediately below the Upper Deck. 1. Cabin of the Princess > parted only by apiece 2. Cabin of the Countess Oldi 5 of painted canvass. 3. Dining-room. 4. Dining-table. 6. 6. Bergami's Birth. 7. Bergami's Bed. 8. Austin. 9. Schiavani. 10. Cameron. 11. The Mate. 12. Servants' Table, 13. Master of the Vessel. 14. leronimus. IS. Lieut Jiy nn. 16. Lieut. Hamiam. 17. Femmes de Chambre. 18. Cupboard round the Mast. For Fairbvr?j's Edition of the Trial of the Queen, to face page 139. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 139 voyage from Jafia ? — On the sofa there was nothing but a single mattress of thQ Princess's : the other mattresses of the Princess were placed below. You have said that the cabin was divided into two, and that the bed of Bergami was in the dining-room : where were these identical beds -placed on the voyage from Jaffa? — The bed of the Princess remained there, but I do not remember as to the bed of Bergami : when he got up it was rolled up, for it liad no bedsteadj but was put down on the planks of the corridor, and was rolled up in the morning. . If you would draw a plan of the beds as they were on the voyage from Ja££a, it would tend much to elucidate the question. — [The witness did so, and after some time it was exhibited to the peers, who had assembled round the witness. The interpreter explained that the only alteration was the re moval of Bergami's bed from his room to the dining-room near the door.] Was Bergami's bed made for him every night during the voyage from Jaffa? — As to that, I cannot tell what happened in the apartments of the Princess : I had other things to do. I saw that the Princess's bed was there, becau.se I went to see the room cleaned. Did other persons sleep where Majochi usually slept? — Yes : that is, where Majochi had his bed . Did Cameron sleep in the same place ? — -Cameron slept in the cabin. How many tents were there on the journey to Jerusalem? — ,1 do not know : many ; several ; as many as were sufficient for so many as there were. By the Lord ChanceUor. — Where did the female attendants of tbe Princess sleep on the voyage from Jaffa ? — The women had a cabin ; the other cabin was assigned to the Countess Oldi ; but I never went below, and therefore did not see whether they slept there. When the Princess had retired into the tent, have you seen a lantern handed out ? — Ygs : sometimes the light was given out under the tent^ and sometimes it was conveyed below by the communication I mentioned : sometimes the sailors, sometimes Theodore, and sometimes the captain himself, took it away. By .Lord BeUutven. — Do you know who gave out the light? — No; the light remained for some time in the tent after it was properly arranged. I did not remain near the tent beyond the time when the tent was arranged. Did any person sleep in the dining-room during the voyage from Jaffa ?--^ Do you speak of what I have seen with my own eyes ? Mr. Denman objected to the witness being asked any question not consis tent with the rules of evidence: he unwillingly interposed, but the wiiness ought to speak only to matters within his own knowledge. The Lord Chancellor concurred: it was always right in counsel to suggest to the House, on any of the questions put, if they thought them objectionable. It might be recollected that, in the Berkeley Peerage, their Lordships had decided that their questions should be regulated by the ordinary rules of evi dence; and they bad determined also to put their questions after the advo cates bad concluded, on the ground tbat the membersof the House were, in ^Kst, counsel for bolh parties — only anxious that justice should be done. l)id you see any person sleep in the dining room }—l do not know. iPy Jiord Darnley. — During the same voyage did the Princess take off her clothes or sleep in them .'—For what I know, the Princess and Bergami slept endeek," for every body said soj but for what I have seen, I hive seen the ' ' Jl *.-i I J f I ill I r inn i, ' ' ' — ¦- ' . * There was a viUanoos misrepresentation of this answer in one of the morning papers. AH Ijiemornmg papers, except the ]V?iu ??i«cs had the answer as above — namely, " For wh«t I-iknoV^tbe Princess and Betgami -d«pt on (fc(*;"batthe New ISjnesputit, " For If hat I know the Princess and Sergami «l^t ttgaher." Xiiis is wottby of Dr. Siop. 140 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Princess open the tent a little, and she had a white gown, dressing-govvn, or some gown, on; she opened it first to take a morsel of air before the' sun rose. [The first part of this answer was struck out, at tbe suggestion of Lor'3 Liverpool, as being only matter of hearsay.] By Lord Ellenborough. — Did you see Bergami losk out of the tent about the same time ? — No, because the Princess opened it towards the sea, just- as little as to look out. Was there any communication between the chamber of the Princess and that of the Countess of Oldi when they both slept down below? — There was a communication. • • Mr. Z)CTwa« requested their Lordships to supply an omission in his cross-* examination. The Lord Chancellor accordingly, at his' suggestion, put the following questions : — What is the name of your ship at Messina ? — II Vero Fidele. Does she belong to Messina ? — Yes. What are the names of your partners in the ship ? — Only Jacomo Milanesi. By Lord Lauderdale.— -Flora your knowledge of the situation of the dining- room and the tent, could any person in the dining-room hear what passed in the tent when il was shut up ? — Yes, a person might hear well, providedthey were words pronoMKced ««VA fl CERTAIN force. Here the examination of this witness closed,, and he was directed towith- draw. The House adjourned at five o'clock. Before the House separated, the Lord Chancellor gave notice of a motion for to-morrow, to render witnesses liable to a prosecution for perjury, or otherwise, for the evidence they gave in this proceeding. . When her Majesty arrived in St. James's-square this morning, about twrenty minutes after ten, it was a crowded in a manner never equalled on any for mer day. It was completely filled with respectably dressed' people, walking opposite to her Majesty's house., A line of waggons was drawn ups in 'which the places were let for hire, and were filled with females. As her Majesty passed along, the mighty mass seemed simultaneously to receive animation. Hats and handkerchiefs Were waved, and every 'one not immediately close to the carriage was leaping up to catch a sight of the Queen. The specimen which the public have had. of the- evidence against her Majesty seemed to have given a confidence to the public enthusiasm on this occasion, and she was received less as a person who had a battle to fight than one whose triumph was assured. Her Majesty's spirits seemed raised to the highest pitch by sympathy and gratitude to the affectionate and exulting peo ple. At a quarter before eleven, the Queen left her house, and proceeded 16 Palace-yard. The state-carriage proceeded slowly from the pressure of the immense assembled multitude. , At Carlton-house there were loud cheers, the soldiers every where presenting arras. The windows were crowded with respectable persons, who joined most warmly in the enthusiasm of the people below. Her ^ajesty was received in Palace-yard wilh ,the usual military 'honours. About the barriers even more caution than ever is used in the ad mission of people. - , ¦ • •The approach of her Majesty is always announced some time before ber arrival, by the loud cheers with' which she is greeted. This species of tele graphic communication extends from Braitdenpurgh-house to Palace-.yard. In the latter place, the signal of her approach is the order to the Guards to pre pare to do the honours that are paid to royalty. TRIAL OF THE QUEKN. 141 At a quarter past eleven o'clock the Queen's carriage drove into Palaccr yard. Her Majesty was accompanied by Lady Anne Hamilton. She was dressed in black, and wore a white veil. Her Majesty looked extremely well. In all the streets through which she passed, her Majesty was moU loudly and enthusiastically cheered. \ On her return from the House the crowds were greater, and the affectionate demonstrations of the people more rapturous, than on any former day. The whole of Parliament-street, the whole of the space before the barriers at We!!tmin. Did they fear that an Italian oath would .be too binding on the consciences *of these miserable creatures, and that an English oath would ie njore convenient > ,t The public may judge from this fact the immense sums lavished in bribing on these filthy Italians. Seven hundred and fifty dollars a mouth' viere all that the Captain received fortliS freight of his vessel, which, as he argues below, after the wear and tear of his sliip, after iie had paid and fed his crew, left little enough for himself: but by this new speculation, in which Jie is engaged, he at once gains, even by his own confession (and the public may rely oh it ¦ lliey don't know all yet). One Tuousand Dollaks, a Month! net! clear of expenses I without the wear and .tear of his ship — without the pay and feed of his crew ! This fellow, Iherefore, is enriched for life ; and the same may be said of his Mate. Never was smearing paid for at such a rate in either Italy or Eiigland before. And here we would stop for a moment, and advise the votaries nfvillany to consider at how much more costly a rata they are obliged to pursue their criminal enterprises than those who arc addicted io the enjoy mrnt of innocent and legal objects, ^'hc Queen of England could hire CaptaiUj. Male, vessel, TttlAL OF THE QUEEN., 155 Vou have slated that after the tent was shut the Ptincess and Bergatni' re- - mained the whole night together : was there any other poi-son in the tent at night? — No. How do you know that Bergami remained there during the whole night?—' Because, when the tent was covered, he remained under it. Did you ever see him in it during the intermediate time? — No. Was there another communication from any other part of the ship to the' tent tt'ithout coming on deck?— Yes, there' was a coinmunication by a ladder, which led into the dining-room. Was it possible for Bergami to get to the dining-room by that communication without your seeing him ? — It might have so happened, though the passage was small ; but 1 don't know that uk did. By Lord Ellenborough, — Was Bergami's bed ever made below, on the pas sage from Jaffa to Terracina? — Never; once I remember Bergami's being obliged to go below in consequence of bad weather.' When the bad weather obliged Bergarai to go below, did the Princess also go below ? — Both together went below. It is necessary to put another question — not whether a bed was ever pre- - pared for Bergami below, but whether it ever was prepared for him in the_ dining- room ? — No. By the Earl of Rosebcrry. — You stated that in blowing weather the light was taken down the ladder; doyou know who took it? — Theodore or Carlino. By Lord Auckland, — You said you received 7oO dollars a month frora the Princess ; did that cover all the expenses of the voyage ? — I have got much to say on that point. The freight of 750 doll-.irs was a very low-^the lowest fpocchis^mo) ailowance, I agreed for 750 dollars a monlh as a certainty j but when we take on board a royal personage, we trust more to uncertain than to certain profits. In these uncertain profits I was disappointed, and I made some applications, sorae demands for compensation ; and the English govern ment thus came tolcnow that I am wu.it I am. What was the expense per month of navigating the ship, paying all charges but harbour duties? — My crew consisted of 22 persons. The wages of these, allowing them, one with another, at JO dollars a month, raake 220 dollars a month. Then, provisions were \ery dear, in consequence of the year being ¦ steril. Then the expense of wearing and tearing was great on this occasion ; for, in consequen(?e of having a royal personage on board, I was obliged to have the sails, the rigging, and all the ship in tight order. The ship cost me 2000 dollars, and the insurance on that amount is at least 1 per cent. ; and, taking all these expenses together, you will find that there could hardly remain any Ihiug out of Ihe 750 dpllars a month. By the Marquis of Lansdown, — You have said you were disappointed of the profits you expected from taking the Princess of Wales in your ship. Did you • make any application to the Princess, or to any other person acting for her, •on the subject of that disappointment? — To her Royal Highness I did not. When she dismissed rae from her service, I received a certificate of character from her. I was dismissed in consequence of Bergami, who wished me- to crew, all for 750- dollars a month : their subsequent employers have been obliged to pay th« first two for iheir own personal exertions (exclusive of keep and travelling expenses), One thousand weight hundred dollars a month! What makes this difference in the pay, we ask .'^ Why, the work, the. nature of the wirrh to be done, no doubt: " 'I'liink'st thou," quotiv,. i'alstaff, ",that I will endanger my soul gratis '" - ¦_ -.,.,,...» ; ,, 166 .TRIAL OF THE QUEEJr. carry them to Venice, which I coiild not do. On our departpr? frora Rhodes^ the Princess, who always commanded what Bergami comraanded, ordered tis to go to Venice ; but on leaving Candia the wind was from the north, and, remaining in that state, our water was going to be at an end ; for I had also nine horses on board. Then 1 told them il was necessary we should land.' They did not wish to go to the Morea, or to return to Candia, and therefore ¦we were obliged to go to Sicily. Having lost sight of Sicily, we went to Naples ; and Bergami, on landing, because he had promised 6000 dollars as a present, told me that there was no present for rae, because I had not taken thera to Venice. Then, when I came here, I presented a memorial through my own ambassador, Count de Ludolph, to the British government; and I Slated, that as I believed I served the Biitish governraent, because I had the honour of wearing the English flag while the Princess was in my ship, I ex pected a present, but had not received any. In consequence of this applica^ tion, the English government knew that I was the gentleman who took the Princess and her suite on this voyage. While the Princess was ou board your ship, did you ever, on any pretence, order or desire the men, or any part of thera, to withdraw from that part of the degk where she and Bergami were? — I don't remember that ever I did. [This ansvver seemed to excite some surprise.] If you had been iu the habit of ordering the mate to leave that part of the deck, is it not likely that you would remember it? — O, now I understand it, ¦ Once I remember to have seen the Princess sitting wilh Bergarai on the bed, and to have ordered the mate to go away, as it was not decent for him to be present, he being a young man."' 1 sent him away not lo see that which was indecent. When you ordered Gaetano to reinove, were any other persons near that part of the deck where the Princess and Bergami were?^rhere were all the persons walking that way, but 1 divided them all, and sent one one way, and another another. Am I to understand, that you desired them all to withdraw? — Yes. Then who remained ? — None but tbe Princess and Bergami. Do you remember any one person in particular whom you , ordered to withdraw? — There was always there Schiavini to receive the commands of ' her Royal Highness. ' Then Schiavini did 'not withdraw ? — No, he did not. By another Peer. — When the tent was shut, did Victorine remain within? (We could not colled the answer.) ¦Had you any means of knowing whether Bergami went away, or whether the hatchway was shut 6r not, after the lent was closed? — 1 cannot say whe ther the hatchway was shut or not ; what I can say is, that in the morning, when the tent was open, I saw the hatchway closed. By the Earl of O'xford.— l wish to ask whether, in consequence of the me morial presented through your ambassador, you received any present? — I have received nothing ; nay, my minister and the colonel to whom I mentioned il, told me, they had got nothing for me, and that 1 should go to London myself, and then I could sec about it. * According to the Times Correspondent already referred to, this answer is wrong given by the King's interpreter. The witness said " he ordered the Mate from the spot because it was i,iot becoming or decent for him, the Mate, lo stand staring or listening about the Princess and Bergami." This is very different from ordering the Blate away, because it was, not decent, he being u young man. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 157 What colonel is it to whora you allude?— Colonel Brown. ' [Symptoms of impatience were now expressed by several noble Lords, with cries of " Withdraw, withdraw."] By the Earl of Duiiuughmore. — You have said, that when the Princess and Bergami were tojjether on thi!' deck, you desired the mate to letiro: doyou recollect, on one occasion, having so dcsiied the mate lo rcliie, when the Princess and Bergarai were seated on a i;un ? Mr. Brougham observed, that this was a leading question. When you sent the mate and others away, did you observe the Princess and Bergarai seated on a gun ? Mr. Brougham suggested, that the two questions should be put separately, and that the sending away of the male should not be mixed up with the sitting on the gun. , Did you ever see the Princess and Bergami sitting together on a gun on the deck ? — Yes ; I have said so. In what situation, as to each other ? — Bergami on the gun, and the Princess on his knee. Did you, on that occasion, send away the mate? — Also, on this occasion, the mate and the rest. Whenever they stood to look at such things, I always sent them away, sorae one way, sorae another. The wiiness was then ordered to withdraw, and was retiring from the bar, »vhen The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that the witness had mentioned his having received a certificate of good conduct from her Royal Highness; and he wished to ask the House; if the witness might be de.sired to produce il. The witness was recalled and examined by the Lord Chancellor, ~ From whom did you receive that paper (the certificate?) — From the Princess of Wales, at Villa d'Este, when I went to her frpra Genoa. Did she give it to you herself, or through any other person ? — The Princess wrote it herself in my presence, and she herself gave it to rae. The interpreter being desired to read the certificate, asked, if it was their Lordships' pleasure that he should read it in English ? (Cries of " No, no.") It was then read in the original Italian : its date was the l6th October, I8I6. The Lord. Chancellor. — Let an accurate copy of il be taken. By the Earl of Lauderdale, — You state, that you were ordered to let down the curtains of the tent. 1 wish to know whether, at that time, the Prinpess and Bergarai were sitting on the gun? [It was observed, that there were here two distinct questions, and the inter preter was desired to put thein separately to the witness.] 'i'he Interpreter. — How ara I to divide the questionj for it is all so put to gether, that I should be glad if your Lordships would divide it for me, (A lapgh.) The questions were then put separately, and the witness answered in the affirmative, and added, that this circumstance had happened more than once. (Order, order.) Mr. Brougham was about to make some remark, but was stopped by cries of " order." Did. you continue to walk the deck after the curtains were let down? — I did ; sometimes tmvards the bowsprit, sometimes tovVards the gun-room, and sometimes towards the cabin. ' ¦; At the request of Mr. Williams, the following question was put by the lard 158 TKIAL OF THE QUEEN. Chancellor.— 'Were you in the habit of going down into th^ djning-room every night?— ^No ; that was what I was not in the habit of doing. The wiiness then withdrew. ^ Mr. Brougham said he had an humble application to make to their Lord ships, in consequence of a communication which he had that moment received.* Hs was anxious to ask onie question of T/itorfore ilffl/oc/«' without further delay, and, therefore, he hoped their Lordships would order him to be called in. He had only one question lo put lo him, which might by possibility lead to one or two more. (Cries of " state the question,'') If their Lordships wou^d allow him to examine this witness, he should have. no objection to mentioti the questions he proposed to put: and the first question he wished to put was, whether ihevntness had been at Bristol during the last season, in the course of the last 12 or 14 months ? The Earl of Liverpool wished, in such a case, that the House should be chiefly governed by the opinion of the learned Lord on the woolsack, and-that of "the learned gentlemen at the bar; but he would suggest, whether, if this course were acceded to, which was breaking in upon estabhshed rules, counsel ought: not, in the first instance, to-state not only the particular question, biit the object of the examination. The Lord Chancellor repeated what he had'-said on a former occasion, that, on an .application by counsel for the farther cross-examination of a witness, their Lordships would be governed by a sense of justice, and by a regard to -the grounds on which the application was made. But if a witness was to be cross-examined again, he could not say whether their Lordships would allow the cross-examination to be taken pifecemeal or not. ' Mr. Brougham admitted that his application was out of the ordinary course of regular proceeding, but he pledged himself that heyvould never ask that witness another question after to-day until he came to open the case. ' At present he should satisfy himself with asking these 2 or 3 questions. The Earlof Pomfret, from the gallery, suggested the propriety of taking the opinion of her judges. (Cries of " No, no.") The Lord Chancellor thought their Lordshipsr should allow the questions to- be put to the wiiness at present. Theodore Majochi was then ordered to be called in, and a short'pause ensued. The Lord Chancellor oh%erved, that it would be necessary that the learned counsel should state his questions to him in the first instance, and that they should be put by bim to the witness. They might, indeed, as far as respect ed tbe regular course of their proceedings, be stated to any peer, and on these conditions might be again examined. • The following is the communication alluded to by Mr. Brougham. It was first commu nicated to Alderman Wood, and by him sent to the Queen's counsel. It puts an end to alt the Signor's gammon about not knowing a word of EngUsh, and so forth. "Gloucester, August 23. " I know you to be a well^wishff of the Queen. The first witness called agmn^ther'l have every reason to believe is a man who lived with Mr. Adam Hyatt, who brought' him over frcim Italy. He always tpohe in ihe highest terms hnson, in the stage-coach, " I have had great advantages offered to me if I will be a witness against the Princess," or' words to that effect? — (With violent gesticulations.) I will lay down my life there (pointing to the space within the bar,) if such an offer was ever made to me. Mr. Brougham. — That is not an answer ; let the question be explained to him. The interpreter here expressed a hope that their Lordships would permit him to use any words, and to exercise his own discretion as to the form and manner of stating and endeavouring to make intelligible the question to this witness. The preceding question was agai.n put. 16g TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Iwill lay down my, life if I ever made any discourse about appearing'as a witness, or about any oath. Did you any where in England hold such- a discourse with any btfdy? I [A considerable lime now elapsed, and various explanations were had be tween the interpreter a^id witness before the latter could understand the full and precise meaning of this question.] ' Heat length answered in the negative. Did you ever St. lie to Mr. Johnson, in a stage-coach, that you had been offered a sum of money, or a situation under governraent, if you would give evidence against the Princess of Wales? — How could I say so, to him, when I did not know bis name ? - Did you ever say to it, Mr. Johnson, in a stage-coach, thalt you had been offered a sura of raoney, or a place under governraent, for the evidence you ¦were to give against the Princess ? — To you I will answer no raore : you ask nje things that never entered ray head — things I never dreamt about. By the Lord Chancellor.^Had you ever any conversation in England with any person in a stage-coach about giving evidence ? ' Mr. Brougham submitted that that question ought not to be put at present: he asked — '*' Had you ever any conversation with any body in a stage-coach respecting her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales ? — I have never spoken about the Princess of Wales in any diligence. ..Did you ever speak about the affairs of the Princess of Wales in the course of any journey you had in England when travelling-in a diligence ?— Never about the affairs of tbe Princess of Wales. I never meddled with those dis courses. • , Did you ever at an inn or in a diligence on a journey in England say that you rtipected money, or a place under government, for giving evidence against her Royal Highness? — Never! Never ! (with vehement action.} How long were you in England when you were bere before the present time i- — The first time one night. How long were you in England at that period when you lived with Mr, Hyatt, of Glocester ? — Non mi ricordo, because T have not the book iri which I erttered it,* About how many months were you in ,Mr. Hyatt's service ?— I cannot tell, because I have not the book in which I put it down. 'Mt. Brougham thanked their Lordships for the favour they had granted hira., .!Ji]ie Solicitor-General viished to put a few questions to the witness.. Tbe Lord Chancellory decided that the interrogatories just closed being in tbe nature of a cross-examination, the counsel on the opposite side had a right to ask some questions on what had just passed. Did you come from Vienna tp this country as servant to Mr. Hyatt ? — Mr. Hyatt brought me here. ;Did you continue jn his service till you set Off for the purpose of returning to Vienna ? — Yes, till that moment : he paid the fare of the coach for rae on my return. By Lord EllerAorough.—V^hen you spoke of her Royal Highness as a buona doana, a prudent woman, did you refer to her moral conduct as a wioman, or to her behaviour to you as a mistress ? — Whten there was discourse respecting * In a former examination, Signor Nomni 'Ricordo denied that be knetr much about ffrittng : here tre find bim. keeping a regular journal of his transactions ! TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 103 the Princess of Wales, I always said that she was a iuoha donna ; because, if I had said tbat she was a cattiva donna, a bad woraan, they would have fought me — knocked me down. (Laughter.) Mr. Brougham here remarked that his object in recalling Theodore Majochi was not to cast any iraputation upon any quarter for any offers raade to him, but with a perfectly different view. It still remained doubtful whether, by biiona donna, the witness meant a kind, or a prudent, good, and virtuous lady. ' Majochi having withdrawn from the bar, Lord Grenville said that he did not think the witness had used any word equivalent lo the expression of the interpreter, '' fought me, knocked me down," The Interpreter replied, that the witness had used the word attaccare, which meant to knock down, though attaccar lite meant to quarrel, or pick a quarrel. He bad rendered the sense with the assistance of Mr. B., Cohen, the interpre ter on the other side, whose aid he had requested, for greater accuracy, when Majochi was recalled. Mr. Brougham added, that the witness had employed the phrase attatcar lite, which might have nothing to do with fighting or knocking down. Mr. Cohen explained attaccar lite to mean to dispute, and admitted' that the witness had used it. Lord Ellenborough repeated the terms in which be had put his question, and gave it as his opinion tbat the interpreter had given too much force to the meaning of tbe witness. After a single riemafk^from Lord Grenville, the answer was amended on the notes of the sbdrt-band writer. The Earl of Liverpool moved the adjourpnient of the House, as it w'as half- past four. (Go on, go on.) He bad no objection to proceeding, but he doubted whether any thing could be gained by calling another witness to-day. {Go xm, go on.) Francisco di Rollo was accordingly put to the bar and svforn ; he was ex amined by Mr. /. Parke. What countryman are you ? — A native of Piedmont. In whose service are you now ?— The Marquis of Ciesa. Were you at any time in the service of the Princess of Wales f — Yes. In what capacity ? — As cook. , In what year did you enter herservice f — It w.as when she came from Venice; but.the year I do not remember. How long did you Continue in it? — Nearly two years, not quite. By whom were yoU hired to go into the Service of the Princess ?— By Signer Bergami. i - j-.Were you atiquainted with Bergami before that time ?— Yes. What Vfas Signor' Bergami when you first knew him ? — He was in the same service ¦ with me. Was' that the service of General Pino ? — Yes. jIn vyhatS'dapacity was Bei-gami acting in the service of (Serteral Pino? — As valet : he used to come down into the kitchen to fetch the dishes' to be put «lpo!n'the table. Afterwards he to(»k the situation of courier. How long were you in the same service with ^tgAmi ^~l vifas in the service of CouBt Ktio, arid he was in th* service of the Ctiiintess. (Laughter.) How long had Bergami been in the service^fJhe Countess Hnol—I^annot tell,. because I went out of the service of General Pino. How long yras he in the service of the Countess Pmo before you left that of 164 TRIAL OF:THE QUEEN. Cdunt Pino?— I do not know, because, when I went into the service of General Pino, Bergami had been in the service of the Countess. How long were you in the service of General Pino ? — I served liim«three. years ; one when he vvas rainister at war, another at Moscow, and the third I do not call service. Was Bergami in the, service of, the Countess Pino all three limes When you served General Pino? — Yes; the only difference was, that I was paid by General Pino, and he was paid by the Countess; but we were in the same service, and dined together. How many years bad you known Bergami before you went inlo the service of the Princess? — Ldo not know : I had served another master. At what place were you taken into the service of her Royal Highness ?— When she went to live opposite the Plaza Borromeo, when she came frora Venice the first time. yiere you with her at the Villa Villani ? — Yes. At the Villa d'Este?— Yes. Did you accompany ber on her voyage to Greece ? — Yes. Did you act as cook on that voyage ? — I did, but not on board the Clorinde and the Leviathan. Did you return wilh the Princess from Greece into Italy.? — I did; but, before I returned, I performed the office of cook on board the polacre. Were you at the Barona ?— Yes. At what place did you leave the service of the Princess F-^At the Barona. For what reason did you leave the service of the Princess ?—jBecaiMe it was the brother qf Bergami who persecuted me,* and then I could not stand the labour. What do you mean by " could not stand the labour ?": — Because there was too much work. Do you recollect where the Princess slept on her voyage out to Greece ?.tt- I do: in the polacre. Before the Princess went to Palestine, do you know in what part of the polacre she slept? — Sometimes under the deck, and sometimes in a tent. Where was the tent ? — Going towards the poop. '.; Where was the usual place where her Royal Highness slept on the voyage from Jaffa to Italy? — She always slept in the tent, excepting when she land ed:^ she went to the tent on account of the horses. Did you know where Bergami slept on the voyage from Jaffa to Italy ? — When we were on board the polacre I saw him in the evening in the tent, and then the tent was closed : here was the Princess, and he was sitting here. (Describing the situation.) , Have you ever seen Bergami in the morning come out of the lent ? — Some times, but npt in the morning early : he came out at a certain hour. At what time in -the morning did Bergami come out of the tent? at what hour did you see him ? — Sometimes I saw him in the morning early, arid sometimes a little later. I was always at the kitchen boiling potatoes for the fattdly for breakfast. , In what part of the vessel was, the hitthen ? — At the mast, near the bowsprit. Was the tent down at night ? — Yes. ,., . In what way was the tent fastened, dpwn at night ? — The tent was closed '* So the origin of this cieature's malice against our Queen is some injury, i^al or imagined, he had enstained from the brother of Bergami, . ; ¦rill At OF THE Qur.EN. l6S amd catered : Sbmetimes I did not take notice, because I wtis attending to my kitchen ; but in going about I saw that it was down. Did yati eteit See a light in tbe tent at night when, it was Closed ?-^Twicc I have seen the light put out of the tent. Do you know who -put the light out of Ihe tent ?~Hdw can I know ? Who took the light when it was put out ?^Eithet Theodore or Carlino. Vfhen you saw Bergumi come out of the lent in the morning, how was he dressed ? — He had t»n a go\vn, which be had made in a part of Greece, wbioh was of silk. Five o'clock being arrived, ihe Earl of Liverpool moved the adjournment, and their Lord^ips separated. Her Majesty in going and returning f-r6«i lbs House this day, was received with Iht Same honoflrs and heartfelt enthusiasm as yesterday : the military every where preseHted arms, and an immense assemblage of people accowipa* iiied her with loud cheers and every demonstration of respect and attachment. EIGHTH DAY.— Friday, August 25. ExojtdnatioR (f Francisco di Rollo continued by Ijdr. Parke. During your voyage frora Jaffa did you see tbe curtains ©f the lent let down jn the day-time ?— I did. What lime of the day ? — In the morning when I got upi Did you see them down someiimes in the middle of the day ? — Yes, alSU in the middle (of tbe day. What persons were under the tent when the curtains were let down ?-^As usual, Bergami and the Princess. Did you accompany the Princess on sliore when she landed and went to Jerusalem ? — Yes. Did you also go with her to Ephesus ?-t-I did. Do you recollect how tbe dinner for the Princess was prepared there? — I do BiOt reBOembeir. We lived at the consul's, and Ido not know exactly* Do you recollect where the Princess did dine ?-^I was not in the same family, and did not pay attention. Did you go with tbe Princess to Scala Nuova ? — No, I went on with the lugflage. Were you at Villa d'Este with the Princess ?-;-Yes. Have you also been at the Baroaa and Villa Villani ? — I have. Had you opportunities at the Villa Villani, at the Barona, a-rad af th* Villa d'-Este, of seeing the Princess and Bergami -toge-tber before the voyage i-i—Not at tbe Barona before the voyage. Did you see them together at the Villa ViUaSJ aaad the Villa d'Este befo-re the voyage ? — Yes. On these occasions when you saw thera tfltgetlier^ how did they condiict themselves ? Dr. Lushingtoa and Mr. Broilgham objected to this question as too general. . , • The Solicitor-General fcboiught it Was a -^Bestiefo 6t t^ be put.' Tbe Lord Ckdneeilmr^ w^i ^Iso of optBtOn tliat it might be putj and the ques tion was repeated. 24' 166 trial- OF THE QUEEN. , On those occasions'how did they conduct themselves? — They were arm in arm. ' Have you seen thera together more than once ? — Yes many a time. Did you ever see them together in the kitchen ? — I have. \\ hat did they do when, together there? — Sometiraes they ordered something to be prepared, or something to eat. When you saw them together, was there any body wilh them ? or were they alon6 ?— Sometimes alone ; sometimes with the dame d'honneur. Was that the Countess Oldi ? — No ; it was Bergami's sister. In what manner did they eat when they came together into the kitchen ?;— [The witness, after having given his answer, \;ontiuued lo speak, and thus interrupted the interpreter in translating. The interpreier therefore begged of their J_,ordships to allow him to inform the. witness that he must hold his tongue while he was giving the translation of his answer. This was done accordingly, and the question was again put. In what manner did they eat ? — She cut a piece, and ate herself; and then cut another piece, and said to lierganii, " There, eat you also." [In giving this answer the wiiness made the motion of picking up something, and eating.] Did you ever see the Princess and Bergami on the lake together ? — Yes. Was an3' person with them ? or were they by themselves ? — Someiimes they were alone, and sometiraes he rowed the boat. Do you recollect a person named Mahomet? — Yes. Did you ever see hira make any exhibitions in the presence of the Prificess? — Ihave. ^ How was he dressed; in the European orTurkish manner?— In the Turkish. Describe what he did ? — Here tbe wiiness danced about, snapped his fingers as if using castanets, made several pantomimical gestures, and sang JDami, Dimi ; Dami, Dimi. The Interpreter. — ^How am I to interpret that ? Your Lordships see it as well as I. Did he do any thing with his trowsers ? — He raade a sort of roll with thera to represent something, I do not know how to call it. Was the Princess present ? — She was looking on, and laughed. Will the witness describe what Mahomet did wilbMhe roll he made of his trowsers ? — He took it in his hand, and made gesticulations; I cannot say (non posso dire) what he meant to represent. What do you mean when you say non posso dire ? — That I cannot say what he had in his head to represent. Did this exhibition by Mahomet take place before the Princess more than once? — I have seen her see it once in the kitchen, and another time when he was in the court, and she at the window. Were you at Turin with the Princess? — Yes. Was she at an inn there ? — Yes. Do you recollect her going to Court any day? — I do. Were you on that morning in Bergami's bed-room ? — I was. At what time in the morning? — About nine, or past nine. Did the Princess get up at that time ? — I do not know. •For what purpose did you go into Bergami's bed-room ?— I was carrying a ruff for the neck, and a pair of gloves, to the dame d'honneur. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. -167 Did the dopr of 'the dame d'honneur's chamber open into Bergami's ? — You entered the room of Bergami, and on the right was the door df the dame d'honneur. Did Bergami's bed appear to have been slept in? — At the moment I was coraing out oT the roora of the dame d'honneur I saw Bergarai coraing out of the Princess's bed-roora, and he scolded rae. What dress was Bergami in at this lime? — He had on his morning-gown of striped silk, and he had his under small clothes, drawers, stockings, and slippers. , Do you recollect any ball at the Barona? — Yes. Who attended it? — The people of the neighbourhood, people of low and middle ranks. Cross-examined by Mr. Brougham. When did you come to this country ? — When they brought me. About what time was that?— About eight ornine months ago. Where were you before ? — With my master. Who is he? — The Marquis Encisa. ' How long have you been in his service? — Three years. When were you first examined on this business ? — Ahont twenty-two or twen ty-three months ago, at Milan. Who examined you at Alilan ? — The Advocate Vilmurcati. Were any other persons by, when you were examined ? — Yes, three or four gentlemen. Have you ever seen them since? — I have seen one of thera. Was that belbre you carae here? — Yes. Did j'ou go to Vilmarcati's yourself, or did any body lake you ? — They sent for me, saying that they wanted to speak to me. Was it ihat time that you agreed to come over here ? — Yes. - How often were you at Vilmarcati's — Twice. What is the narae of the gentleraati you knew ? — Colonel Brown. Was it he that sent for you ? — Yes. How did you know him ? — Because I saw him at tbe advocate's, and he lived near iny house. Do you mean at Milan ? — Yes. What wages had you from the Marquis ? — A livre of Milan per day, eating, .drinking, every thing comfortable, and perquisites, which were raany. What wages had you frora the Princess ?-— Every three months 10 Nap6- leons, that is to say, ten 20 francs. There were no perquisites in the house of the Princess, 1 take for granted? — I never received any presents, except when we returned frora the voyage; Bergarai gave rae two dollars when he was raade a baron. Were you not cook ? — Yes. Had you no perquisites as cook ? did you make nothing besides your wages? — The profits I left to the other people who woiked with me, and whose pay was small. Did Bergami pay you ? — .Yes. Did not Bergami overlook the accounts of the house ? Interpreter. — You mean look over, not overlook. (A laugh.) Mr. Brougham stood corrected. Did not Bergami look over the accounts ? — Yes. Was he not very exact ?'r-I do not know that. 168 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. When 6n hoard the ship, was it your business to bo ©n deck, or to be belsw, eaoking I-— I worked in the kiticfaen. Where was the kitchen ? — On deck. Where did the maids of the Princess sleep ?— I do pnt OoiOw, Wiere did leronimus sleep ?— "That I know, because I used sometimes to -go into his cabin to have a glass. His room was in a corner. Where did Mr. Hannam skep, the iEnglish gentlem'an?— I do not know in' which cabin he slept, there were so many right and left; but I know he slB]Mt in one. ' Where did Captain- Flinn sleep ? — In someroowi, but I do not know which. What have you had for coming here? — Nothing but trouble. Do you expect any thing ? — 1 hope to go soon home, to find njy master. Are you not to have a livre a-day whiJe you are absent from your master ; or is dny one to have a livre a-day for you ?— ^My daughter is to have a livre a-day ; but I have received no letters, and I do not know if she has got thp money. Examined by the House. The Earl of lAverpool.-~-Whea you said that Bergami's bed appeared to be made, did you mean that it appeared as if it had not been slept in ?— *-! do. The Marquis of Lansdown.— Do you remember to have seen Mahomet perform the same dance, which you describe him lo have perfon«ed before ^e Princess, in the presence of other members of the family, the Princess being absent? — Yes, he played the same tricks before us many times. How did you know ii to be the Princess's room out of ¦which you saw 'Bergami come? — Because, when I was ordered to, carry in breakfast, I went to carry it, and I saw the Princess coming out of the same room, combed «nd dressed. The Duke of Hamilton.— -At what time of the day was this? — Not fully dressed forgoing out; but in her usual dress, and combed.^ I ask at what lime of day was it when it appeared to you tbat the bed was nqt made? What time was it in the morning when Bergami was coming out of the room ? Was it when the Princess was preparing to go to -court ? , The Lord Chancellor desired the shorthand-writer to r«ad the former questions and answers as to the witness seeing Bergami come out of the Princess's room. 7'he questions were read. The Earl of I. or at what time ? — I have had some disputes with Bergami be&ife I Jeft tb« service of the Princess, and with his brother. When you left the service of the J*ri neess, did s-he give you a good character ? No; because r did not ask for it. ^ Did you leave her service of your own accmd, or were you dJscJrarg'ad f -<- There was some quarrel, iip or dfl^wn; H«d t'hpy said, " You may go," «nd I went. TRIAL OP THE QUEEN. l6S Earl Grosvenor, — At what time in the morning wero the beds commonly tnade while you were at Turin ? — Idid not go lo make the beds. Earl Grosvmor. — That is not an answer to my question. The Interpreter.— t am aware of that, my Lord; but I must give the answer which I receive from the witness. The question repeated. — I cannot say, for there was a servant, the chasseur, who made the beds. It -was only accidentally that I entered the room. Was it your duty, as cook, to carry in the breakfast ? — There were the waiters'of the inn to do that. Was Mahomet one of those particularly employed in the service of the Princess? — Mahomet had the care of the horses; he was employed in the stable. The Earl of Darlington. — Do you remember the King and Queen coming to visit the Princess at Turin ? — Yes. Did the Princess go out airing with the King and Queen ? — Yes. Did Bergami go in the same carriage? — The Princess went out with the King and Queen; Bergami- followed ; but the King- had the arm of the Princess. ^ Did Bergami go out in the same carriage ? — This I cannot say. I know he also went out in a carriage, for there were three carriages ; but I cannot tell in which. Do you remember at what time tbe Princess went to court? — When she went out for the airing, it was about eleven in the morning; when she wentlo dinner, it was one. The Earl of Morton. — The witness has Said, speaking of Bergami's bed, that it appeared, upon the occasion he referred to, to be made. - Is it usual to make up the bed in a different forra for the day and for the night?— There must be a manner; I do not know; I know, that in -my house, the bed is made in the morning. Ijjrd .-lucktand. — At whal hour did you see the Princess go to court?-— About half-past nine or ten. . - Re-examined by Mr. Brougham, through the medium of the Lord Chancellor. While )ou were in the service of the Princess were you not confined to your bed in consequence of a hurt received in a scuffle? — Yes. Do you remember the Princess coraing to your room to see if you were well treated ? — I do*; and Bergami. Lord Ellenborough. — At what hour did the Princess come- to see you ? — , The hour I do not know. I know I was half asleep, and Bergami said "Mind, it is the Princess come to see you." Did the Princess come more than once ? — Once, • By night or day ? — By day. Were you in bed at the lime of the Princess coming? — I was. The Earl of Carnarvon, — Did the Princess corae alone?— Bergami came wilh her. The witness withdrew.* , .* There is nothing in the examination of this witness deserving of notice. .Her Royal Highness appears to. have treated bim hke the resl of her household, with the utmost kindness and condescension. Bergami, in the discharge of his duty to the Queen, keeping a sharp look out after the cook's ncemnts, seems to have been the cause of- some dispute and disap- pointment to Signer Francisco. 25, 170 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Captain Sa-muel George Pechell sworn, and examined hy the Attorney General, , . You are an officer in hb Majesty's navy ?— I am. You commanded the Clorinde' in the year 1815? — I did. Were you at Civita- Vecchia in March, 1815 ? — I was. Did you there receive the Princess on board the Clorinde? — I did. Do you remember by whom she was accompanied on that occasion ? — By Lady, Charlotte Lindsay, Mr. North, Dr. H-olland, Madame Falconet, and by various servants. ' Among those servants do you remember Bergami? — I do. In what capacity did Bergami appear on board the Clorinde ? — As a menial servant. Were you in the habit of dining with the Princess at the time she was on board the Clorinde ? — I was. The Princess, was entertained at my table. Did Bergami wait at table ? — Every day. Did be wait as a menial servant, as any other servant ?'^He did. Where did you convey the Princess at that time ? — To Genoa. Did you touch at Leghorn ? — We did. Did any of the suite of the Princess quit the ship at Leghorn I — Lady Char' lotte Lindsay and Mr. North. Was not there a boy named Austin on board ? — ^There was. > Did the Princess quit the ship at Genoa with her suite ? — She did. Do you remember how long the Princess was on board your vessel at that time ? — Seven or eight days. During the autumn of the same year were you again at Genoa ? — I was, in August, 1815. Did the Princess in tbat month embark at Genoa on board the Leviathan t -^Not until November. Did you see the Princess between the time of her departure in March until, you saw her in November at Genoa ? — No. Did you see her at the time when she came to embark on- board the Levia.- than?— Idid. Did you see her come down to the vessel in her carriage ? — I did. i Who accompanied her in the carriage? — I remeraber the Countess of Oldi^ Bergami, and an infant ; but I do not remember any olher persons. Did you go in the Clorinde frora Genoa lo Sicily? — I did. Had you directions to go to Sicily for the purpose of receiving the Princess there ? — I had. At what tirae did you arrive in Sicily ? — ^^On the 7th December. Wliere in Sicily did yoii receive the Princess on board ? — At Messina. Previous to your receiving the Princess for the second time on boa;rd the Clorinde, had any communication taken place between her Royal Highness and yourself? — Yes. What vJas Mhe nature of that communication ? — I received a Tetter from, Mr. Hannam,,}nforming me that the Princess intended to embark from Genoa in the Clorfedfe. That waslwfore you left Genoa? — Yes. You had another communication at Messina .? — Yes. State the nature of it. — The morning after I arrived at Messina Captain. Briggs informed me that the Priheess expressed some uneasiness at the pros pect of keeping her own table on board the Clorinde. I therefore desired Captain Briggs to say to the Princess^ iri my name, that I was ready to do TTIIAL OF THE QUEEN. 171 every thing in my power to make her comfortable while she was on b6ard tbe Clorinde, provided she would be pleased to make a sacrifice, which my duty, as an officer compelled me to exact, by not insisting upon the admission of Bergarai to ray table ; for that, although now adrailted to the society of her Royal Highness, he had been a menial servant when she had last embarked on board the Clorinde. In the afternoon of the same day I saw Captain Briggs, who said that he had had a conference with the Princess, as I had desired, and that, from the tenor of his conversation with her, he believed there would he no difficulty in ray request being acceded to, but that her -Royal Highness re quired a day to consider the subject. The Leviathan sailed on the following day, and on the morning after I visited the Priiicess, wilh a view to know her determination. The Princess declined seeing me herself, but desired Mr. Hannam to inform me that ray request would not be acceded to ; and, in con sequence, ber 'Royal Highness provided her own table. How soon after that did the Princess embark on board the Clorinde at Mes sina ?— On the 6th J.anuary following. How long was that after the coinmunication of which you -have spoken ? — About a month. Who accompanied the Princess on this second time of her coming on board ? — The Countess of Oldi, Bergarai, Master Austin, a Count whose name I un derstood to be Schiavini, and various servants. Was there a liitle child ?— There was ; I understood it lo be Bergami's child. Where did the Princess dine while she was on board ? — In her own cabin. Do you know who dined wilh her ? — I do not. She did not dine at your table ?— She did not. How long did she remain on board the Clorinde ? — Three or four days. Mr. Brougham declined asking the witness any question. The Earl of Oxford wished to ask Captain Pechell one question. If he had seen, at his (Lord Oxfor.d's) or any one else's house, a kd waiting at table; and that lad had afterwards been made a midshipman, and, by his merit, risen to the rank of Captain ; would Captain Pechell then refuse to sit down to dinner xmth him at his (Lord Oxford's) table. The Lord Chancellor thought that the wiiness might be asked what his con duct bad been upon the occasion in question; but not what his conduct would be in another case. (Hear, hear.) The witness withdrew.* ¦* This Captain appears to have been very squeamish about the company he kept. HA ought to have remembered that — Worth makes the man, want of it the fei.i.ow» All the rest is leather and prunella. Old Sly would not allow Captain Pechell to answer the question of Lord Qj^ferd. Indeed, tbe principles of the Captain would not bear investigation. WiUiam GifBsHkp editor of the Quarterly Review, a government journal, formerly mended shoes ; hia^f^Bin Pechell would hardly consider himself degraded by sitting down to table wilh wMRjpbrd. Th« late John M'Malwn, 3 great favourite of the King's, formerly a menial, was^de a Right Honourable, and received an enormous pension. A favourite lad, who used to wait at table on Mrs. Clarke and the Duke of York, received, on the solicitation of Mrs. C, a commission in the array. He was serving in America at the time of the memorable investigation : — we never heard that the ptScera of the British army refused to dine with him when the method of- bis advancement, was made knoWn. It were easy to enumerate similar instances, but it is unnecessary. It is a noble trait in the Queen's character, and shows het Majesty worthy of her illustrious 'ra'ilk, that she disdained to sacrifice a person of merit to the paltry scruples qf Captaia Pechell. Perhaps, after all, the captain was only j'ta/ouj. 172 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Captain Thomas Brings sworn and examined hy tJie Attorney-Gmerai. You are a Captain in his Majesty^s navy ? — I am. Did you in the year 1815 command the ship Leviathan ? — I did. Were you in Genoa in the course of that year ? — I was ; in November. J believe your vessel was ordered to Genoa, to convey the Princess and hqf ^uite to Sicily ? — ^Yes. * Did the Princess and her suite embark on board the Leviathan, at Genu*? —Yes. Can you lell by whora her Highness was accompanied ? — By her suite. Of whom did that suite consist? -^Bergami, Mr. Hannara, I think Schia-r villi, and two or three other foreigners. The names of the servants I do not know. There was also the Countess of Oldi and two servant maids. Do you remeraber the Princess coming down to embark ?. — Yes. Who came in the carriage wilh her ?— The Countess Oldi, Bergami, a child, and, I think, another person. Did the Princess dine at your table ?— Always. Did Bergami dine with her ? — Always. What disposition had you made of the cabii)s on board your vessel for the accomraodatiun of the Princess before she carae on board ?-<-I had made such an arrangement as I thought would accommodate all parties. With respect to the sleeping-rooms, where did you design the cabin of the Princess ? — The after-part of the Leviathan was divided into two cabins, which I intended for the princess; one as a sleeping-room, the other as a drawing-room. Before that, there were two other small cabins in a line with each other, which I intended for the Countess Oldi and the two raaid-servanjs : and I meanti to put the men any where ; some in the ward-room, some in my own cabin, as 1 migbt find most convenient, reserving a part of the cabin for tafself. ¦ Was that disposition altered when the Princess came on board ? — Yes. A plan was here presented to the witness. Mr. Brougham did not object to the plan being placed in the hands of Captain Briggs, but would object lo it if offered lo any olher wiiness. Captain Briggs declared that the plan was unnecessary. Were the cabins raeant by you for the Countess Oldi and the feraale servants immediately adjoining that of the Princess ?-^They were. In what manner was the arrangement altered ? — An alteration took place in the door of the cabin which I meant for the Countess Oldi, and Bergami ^as put into it. .r What alteration took place in the door ?-^The two small cabins, whif h were lo have contained the Countess Oldi and the maid-servants, had commu nication within each other. When the Princess came on board, she said that she desired Bergami's cabin to be changed to that which I had intended for the Countess ^M^ Originally, to have gone into that cabin you must have passed through t^^Hpm intended for the maid-servants; but when this alteration ttjofc placiPH|fdoor of communication between those two rooms was nailed up, and a door was opened from Bergami's room, which carae out close to the room occupied by the Princess. So that, after the alteration, tire door into the room appropriated to Ber' gami was near to the door of the cabin of the Princess ? — It was. Have you ever seen, the Princess walking with Bergami ? — I have. In what way ?— Arm in arm. That, I think, was at Messina, I did not think it at all uijcommou. [Here the witness dropped bis voice.] THIAL OP THE QUEEN. 175 Not uncommon, considering th( terms they were upon, did you say i-~I said not uncommon, because it happened occasionally. Do you remember waiting on the Princess at ftlessjna, in consequence of the request of Captain Pechell? — On the wish of Captiin Pechell I waited on her Royal Highness when she was about embarking ou board the Clorinde. I asked her Royal Highness's permission to speak to her on the subject of Bergami's dining at the Captain's table. I had been told that Bergarai h*d iiUed the situation of a servant. Her Royal Highness said, " He ha's sat at the table wilh ine, and I cannot conceive what ohjection can be raade to it now." I observed that Bergami had never been a servant on board my ship — if he had, it would have been impossible to admit him lo my table. - Did you communicate what had passed between yourself and her Royal Highness to Captain Pechell ?~I did. Then you left Messina?— I did ; I left it on the llih of December, threeot four days afterwards. Cross-examined by Mr. Denman. In the course of the conversation with Captain Pechell respecting her Eoyal Highness, did you not perceive that there had been some dispiite between them on a former occasion ? — I had seen.Captain Pechell before I waited on her Royal Highness. He came to me, as senior officer, and told me what line of conduct he raeant to adopt. Did you not know some dilYerence existed between her Royal Highness and Captain Pechell about the stow'ing of some luggage? — On her Royal bligbness's part I did. She said she had not been treated by Captain Pechell with the same degree of accommodation that I had afforded her. Did it fall to your knowledge to know where the Countess of Oldi slept on board the Leviathan ? — It did.. Was it in a room adjoining that of her Royal Highness ? — Yes. Was there a door opening from the one to the other ? — Yes. Did the two apartments open inlo the dining-room ? — Yes. By two doors ? — Yes. I believe the cabin you provided for the maids was occupied by them -^-^ Yes. And it opened also to the dining-room ? — Yes; but there was a SHiall' cabin between them. , Re-exarained by the Altorney-General. — Was not this a ship of the line }— Yes. Much larger than the Clorinde, and capable of affording much more ac commodation ? — Yes. By Lord Ellenborough. — :Was the sleeping-room of Captain Briggs closed at night, or did hp hang in a cot ? — I slept in a room that was closed at night. Could persons pass by that room without observation ? — I thin^ it povsiblfis^ but very improbable. Any one attempting to do so must run great risk. It might, perhaps, be done when I was asleep, but I don't think it likely that any person could pass without my knowledge. By another Peer. — Were you .not frequently on deck ?^I have been fre<- quently half a night on deck : I was subject to all calls. I was very constantly out on deck at night. Did the w i tness see any improper familiarity between the Princess and bergami ? !«-I?o; Isaw NONE.' 174 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Had you any reason to suspect any improper freedom or famiUarkybelwea them? — No. By Earl Grey.— You had the usual complement of officers on board the ship ? —Yes. Had they not constant access to your cabin during tbe night? — Yes. Were you not. Captain Briggs, liable to be called up at any moment during the night? — Yes. By rhe Earl of Rosebery. — After the alteration of the rooms. Captain Briggs,; I want to know whether it was absolutely necessary, in going to you, to pass through Bergami's room ? — No, it was not. I also ask whether, when you were called up at night, you must, in your pro gress to the deck, necessarily pass through the dining-room? — My cabin-door opened so that I might pass without going through the dining-room. I had only to go through an angle of it. There was no necessity to go immediately through the dining-room, as ray cabin-door was close to the end of it. Then I am to understand that you did not pass immediately through that room, but through a,n angle of it only ? — Yes. ' By another Peer. — How long was her Royal Highness on board ? — From the i4th of November to the 4th of December. I wish to ask whether all those officers who carae for orders raust not pass through the dining-room f — The door that opened into my cabin was in an ^ngle of the dining-room. By another Peer. — I wish particularly to know, whether, when officers came to the witness for orders, they went through the dining-room or not ? — They must come into the dining-room, but not through it. They must cora& over tbe threshold of the dining-room to get at my cabin. By the Marquis of Buckingham, — They did not then go through the dining- Toofn ? — To come to my cabin-door, they must positively go into the dining- room, but not through it. Does the witness allude to the door at which the sentry stands ? — ^Yes. By Lord CoMlle.-^l^ad the door of your cabin hinges ?— Yes. What sort of a partition divided the sleeping apartments from the dining- room ? — An ordinary one. . Did you always cause a light to be kept burning in the dining-room at night ? — No. Was there any. light in the after-cabin at night? — ^Therc might be a light there; but I do not know of any. By the Earl of Liverpool. — Was any light allowed to be burned in the after- cabin ?— A light might have been placed there; but I don't remeraber one. By Lord Colville. — During the time her Royal Highness was on-board, did any person sleep in the dining-room ? — Yes. Who was that person ? — Master William Austin was one. There were one or two cots besides; but I really cannot tell who slept in thera. Were thpreany screens round tbose cots? — There was a screen on tbe out side ; the othtr side adjoined the ship's' timber. Supposing her Royal Highness to have wished for the assistance of any of her female attendants, , had she any means of communicating with them, by bell or otherwise ?^ — Yes. Were there two doors, or only one, frora the dining-room to the quarter-' deck ?: — There were two doors. Were they both used occasionally by the officer of the watch at night ? — No, TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 175 "Which door was he accustomed to enter at ? — The left door ; the larboard door we call it. Was the starboard door shut ? — It was used for a different purpose. If the larboard happened to be the weather side, would the officer of the Watch enter on the opposite side ? — No. By the Earl of Lauderdale, — What answer did the Queen give when you spoke to her in consequence of Captain PechelVs representation ?— She said it was of no consequence ; it was only to prevent the Captain from keeping two tables that Bergarai dined with her at all. I left her under the impression that the matter would not be persevered in further, because I remarked to her how easy it was to send Bergami's dinner to a smaller cabin. When her Majesty complained of Captain Pechell's conduct with respect to the luggage, was it previously lo, or after, the communication with her Ma jesty of wbich you have spoken ? — I never heard any thing in the shape of a complaint ; it was a matler of conversation before Captain Pechejl came on board. Lord Exmouth. — \ really don't see the necessity of going into an inquiry with respect to what Captain Pechell said. I think it qqite unnecessary to - state what took place between him and others. The Eail of Derby wished to ask whether the alteration of the cabin was directed by the Princess, or by any person in her narae? Lord Exmouth. — That has been answered already. The Earl of Derby.— \ don't think that it has. (Order, order.) The question was not pressed. Re-examined by Mr. Denman. — I wish to ask Captain Briggs whether he had not received a complaint against Captain Pechell as to the manner in which her Royal Highness's baggage was stowed on a former voyage? — I have heard Captain Pechell say that her Royal Highness had a vast deal of bag gage, which lumbered tbe ship. It was merely in the nature of a remark. It was not a matter of complaint to me as the superior officer. I don't mean a formal complaint — but observations expressive of dissatis faction, with respect to the baggage, as well as the expenses of the table ? — i The Attorney-General interposed. — This sort of statement, he contended,, •ould not be received as evidence. Mr. Denman argued that it was evidence which their Lordships ought to have before them. If we can show that there were differences between those parties, arising from circumstances of a description quite unconnected with those stated, he apprehended that it would have weight as accounting, in a considerable degree, for the alterations which had bi en alluded to. The Attorney-General.— -This is matler on which Captain Pechell should be examined, and not Captain Briggs. Mr. Denman. — The reason 1 put it to Captain Briggs is, because he appears between her Majesty and Captain Pechell as a negotiator, and must therefore' be cognizant of what passed. The Lord Chancellor thought it quite clear that the conversation between Captain Pechell and Captain Briggs could not be received in evidence, because what occurred with respect to the Queen must be considered as the act of Captain PeChell himself At the same time, if the opposite party could show that''Captain Pechell or Captain Briggs had so acted as to induce hef Majesty, under the particular circumstances of the case, to cause certain alterations to. be made, when she came gn board, it was competent for tbeM to do so. 176 TRIAL OF THE -QUEEN". Mr. Denman,-r^ have had ari opportuhity of -Cbbferring with my ieafned friends on this subject, and I decline pressing the examination Airther.* PiETRo PvcH-i was then called in and sworn. The Lord Chancellor directed the Interpreter to tell the vcitness to spftak audibly. ( The Intel-pretfer desired the witness to speak loud ; and when he (the inter-' preter) addressed hira, to be silent. The Solicitor Geheral then proceeded to examine the witness. Does the witness reside at Trieste ? — Yes. iJoes he keep an inn there ? — Yes ; I am the agent for the grande albergo at Trieste. By the Earl of Liverpool. — What do you mean by agent? — 1 am acting for my Madame — my Donna. Thh Solicitor General -proceeded : — Do jtm know an inn called the Black Eagle, at Trieste?— I do. Who keeps it 1—-Vincenza Bartoloqui. Is that the name of the inn of which you are agent ? — Yes ; it is the grande tilbergo of the town. ,Do you remeraber the Princess of Wales coming to that inn l—l remember it much. In what kind of a carriage did she come ? — In a small open carriage, with two post-horses. Who came^with her in that carriage ? — Bergami was with her, without any olher servant at all. How long is it since that affair happened ? — I do not remember. It is, I :SBppose, four years ago: I think more than four years. How long did her Royal Highness remain at "rrieste at that time? — Six days. Do you know in what apartment her Royal Highness slept ? — I do. Do you know the apartment ajlotted to Bergami ? — I do. .-^fter her Royal Highness and Bergami came in the carriage, in the manner described, did her suite follow in other carriages ?— They arrived in about an hour after her Royal Highness. Into what apartment did the bed-room of -her Royal Highness and the bed- i*Oom allotted to Bergami open ? Mr. Brougham objected to this question, by which it was assumed, that those two rooms opened into one apartment. The Solicitor General, — Into what place or apartment did the bed-room of her Royal Highness and that allotted to Bergami open? Mr. Williams opposed the question, as assuming a particular fact. The Solicitor General. — Inlo what place did the bed-room of her Royal Highness open? — The door was facing the room of the dame d'honneur. The door, you say, was facing the room^of the lady of honour ; what was between them ? — The dining room. * The evidence of tho two last witnesses will outweigh " a whole theatre of others.'! Both, Captain Pechell and Captain Briggs are Eng&ftmen, not Ifaiions ; neitlier of thehi had rt-eeived bribes ; and neither of them observed- the least impropriety betwixt Bergami and the Princess. Captain Briggs swears positively that he " had not ariy reason tq suspect any- improper freedom or familiarity between them," It must be remembered too, that the Queen made the same arrangement of the rooms on board the Leviathan as on former occasions: this is of importanoe, because \.hi Attomeij-Generalia his inSaramstory speech relied, chiefly on the uniform arrangement of the rooms as the grounds of iiii " udAiXterous intercourse," TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 177 Did the door of ihe bed-room occupied by her Royal Highness open into the dining room ? — Yes. Did the door of the b.id-room allotted to Bergami open also into the dining room? — The room where Bergami slept opened into the room of the dame d'honneur, who was Bergami's sister, and that into the salle H manger. ' Were there any other doors that opened into that dining room from the Princess's room f— Yes, the door of No. 4, to go out by. Was that that ihe only other door that led to this dining roora? — Those that I have mentiinied were the only doors. Now, can the'wilness tell us whether the outward door wus fastened at night ? — It was fastened when they went lo sleep. Was it fastened from the inside or the outside ? — I don't know whether it was shut from the inside or the outside. I don't know whether it was fastened by tbe Princess's servants. Was it closed during the six nights her Royal Highness was there?— It was always shut up at night, whenever the parlies went into the roora to sleep. What beds were in the bed-room occupied by her Royal Highness ? How many ? — There were two beds near one another. What bed or beds were there in tho room allbtled to Bergami ? — There \yas one bed only. ** Mr. Brougham connected the translation of this answer, making it " one ' single bed." Did the witness, at anytime during the morning, while her Royal High-^ ness was at Trieste, see Bergarai come out of any room into the dining roora ? — / have seen him come out of the room qf the Princess.* At what hour? — About 8, or half past 8, in the morning. How many times did you see that during the six days her Royal Highness remained at Trieste ? — Three or four limes. Will the witness describe the manner in which Bergarai was dressed when coming out of the room of her Royal Highness ? — He had a dress raade in the Polish fashion, with some gold lace on it, which came from the waist down behind. What else besides that ? — He had drawers. Had he any stockings on ? — Sometimes he had stockings, and sometimes pantaloons, which were at once stockings and pantaloons ; but I cannot precisely say, for I was looking out through the keyhole of my room. (A laugh.) What had he on his feet ? — It appeared that he had some strings. [The Interpreter stated that the strings were to fasten the drawers.] ' /_ * A little explanation of the duties of an Italian courier will sufficiently account fpr^Ber- gami coming out of the Princess's bed-ebomber, and also for his room being generally placed near that ef her Boysl Highness. The oSi9e of a courier differs widely from that of an JEJoglUh footman. He performs the duties of a guide, interpreter, steward, vaJel, and lady's maid. On arriving at an inn, he first chooses the bed-rooms in .the saloon, termed in Italy the soil, and fixes his own next adjoining the ladies ; he then examines the beds, gives out the bed-linen, and sees the beds made, in which men in general assist, or make entirely. He orders the dinner, the ladies not knowing what is coraing until it appears-; he discharges all bills of expense ; and in the morning ho goes into tlie iadies' bedrooms, after they have risen, and while they are in the room, he collects the bed and other linen, packs it up, dr gives it out forwasbing. if the ladies Ting firon -their bedroom, be answers, enters and continues, and -i«hen teavhlg the rosm, no one jnftrs that he has been upon a, «riBii)wi.,^(>Bd,-,, |g,f)i^i«pt are the services of an EnglisH feotman, wlio wpuld fully jfl8l%-)Ji^ pijdimry t^sBS dwel*.»pw jmth so nucb euphuia by the accuEsiBg coonsel, if be were i^m. .m, «D {jBglish mu .«Kt>t in with his mistress m her bed-ch^wbw. Wo such e^imt infartwe is, liswever, m^de i» Itatyj from the well-known familiar services an Italian courier performs. 26 178 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. At the times, you saw this, was the dining room door open? — ^^It was still closed. What led you to look through the keyhole in the manner you have de scribed? Mr. Williams sixhmitted that the motives of the witness could not be received in evidence.The Solicitor-General.— Where did the wiiness himself remain in the morn ing, before he went into the dining-room ? — In my own room, which was at the end of the dining-room. Where was the door from which you looked ?— [The witness here pointed out, with his hand, the relative situation of the rooms.] — My roora was be tween the corridor and the salle & manger, having a door leading to the salle d manger; and from the keyhole of that door, I looked into the latter room. What were you doing in your own room at the time ? — I was there with my , service, to give them (tbe Princess and suite) breakfast when they asked for if. I was also pulling ray knives, forks, &c. in order. Did you go into the dining-room at tbe tirae ? — When they asked for break fast, I answered thera. Did you remain there wilh the breakfast service, or did you go back ? — I remained wilh the breakfast service in my own room. Were you afterwards summoned lo go with the service inlo the dining-room ? —I was, and then I carried the things there. ¦Did you go in before you were called for that purpose ? — Never. Did you, while she was there, ever see the Princess and Bergarai walking ? — All day, every day. The interpreter stated, that the witness meant " they were always together." In what way ? — Sometimes in the hall, sometimes in the salle & manger, and someiimes in the room of the dame d'honneur. Did they walk together separately, or in a familiar manner ? — They were someiimes alone; sometiraes they turned round and spoke to the suite; some times on one side, and sometimes on tbe other. In what manner did they walk together ? Were they near each other or separate ? — They did not touch each other, as far as I have seen ; but they walked arm in arm. (A laugh.) Did the witness ever see the Princess with any olher person, while she was at Trieste, besides Bergami ? — Yes ; there was a Count Dore,- who conducted her Majesty to the theatre. He came to hand her in and out. She gave her right hand to the Count, and her left to Bergami. Did you make any observations on the bed assigned to Bergami ? — Yes, I have. Did that bed appear to have been slept in f — Never.* I wish to know whether, after Bergami went away, you made any observa tions on tbe sheets of the bed ? — The sheets were put on tbe bed clean, and were taken away clean. How many pots-de-chambre were there in the Princess's bed-room ? — Theri nere two.f ' Were they both made use of? — I did say yes. • Probably Bergami slept with the dome d'honneur, whose chamber was betwixt hiS roora, and that of the Princess; or he might sleep with some other domestic. t One o;f the- pott de chambre, most probably for little X^ietorine, who always slept next the Princess. What stuff for the '< Great Coumeil of the Nation !" TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 179 Were there more than one wash-hand-stand and basin in the room ? — ^Tliero were two. Did they appear both to have been used, or only one?— I don't remember: many travellers wish two basins, and yet they may be alone. Were you present when her Royal Highness went away ? — I was. How did she go away ? — In the same way in whicb she arrived ; in the same open carriage. Did Bergami go with her ? — Yes. This closed the examinalion-in-chief of this witness. Cross-examined by Mr Williams. — How long was it between the lime that the Princess departed, and the time her suite set out ? — About a quarter of an hour: not quite so much: almost immediately. . Have you any doubt of the Princess's having remained so long as five or six days? — Of that I am quite sure. Are you sure of it ? — No raore. But are you sure that she remained so long as live or six days ? — Yes. Do you remember the days of the week — the day on which she came ? — l don't renumber. Do you remember the day in which she went away ? — Never ; if any body had told ine something to that point, I might have ascertained it;, but I don't rememlier. As the lime is long, perhaps your memory is not fresh ? [The Solicitor-General objected lo this question, and it was not pressed.]. Did the room of which you speak open into the dining-room; aye or no? — ^Therc was a secret door, that could not be known lo be a door to any one in the dining-room. That nobody knew ? — Yes. Was that part in which the door was covered with tapestry, or was it wood like the rest, or how? — In was covered with painted canvass. Which toxered the whole, so that a person in the dining-room could not tell whether there was a door or not? — No. I ask whether il was possible for any person in the dining-room lo know if there was a door or not ? —It was impossible, except for one of the family. Was not the reason of the impossibility, because the door was entirely covered with canvass? — Yes. Then 1 unlerstand you rijiht when I say, that the reason why no stranger could find out the door was, that it was wholly covered with canvass ? — Yes. It was entirely covered ? — Entirely. Are you still agent, or by whatever other name than agent you maybe called, for :he Grand Hotel at Trieste? — I am after taking the inn which is called the Black Eagle ; but if I don't gain the trial (the lawrsuit,) I shall continue to be in the Grand Hotel. [This answer appeared to excite a considerable sensation. The Solicitor" General thought the meaning of the wiiness was, " if I don't gain what I attempt to gain." The short-hand writer was desired lo read the answer, and the word -" law-suit" was retained as the correct translation.] 1 do not ask what you are to be hereafter, but whether you are still agent for the Grand Hotel? — lam not sure, because the inn is exposed to an auction every nine years. The lease has expired, and I don't know whether my principal will buy the lease or not, because it belongs to the corporation. As agent to tbe Grand Hotel, was it not chiefly your business to wait on the guests ? — I have vvaited on them ; I am always the person. 180 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The head waiter ?— Yes. _ ' ' . ' Then was it not your business always to wait on the guests ?— Both. Both what ?•— Both the one and the other. What other?— As I am the oldest servant in the house, 1 know thd, I hav*; sail here and at Milan. TMAX OF THE QUEBK. 181 Have you been examined in England by the sarae gentleman that examined you at Milan ? — No. Not by any body ? — I was exarairied in the presence of the presen tgentle- men, and the advocate whora we have mentioned. What do you mean ?— I have been examined on the same subject. By whom ? — By the same lawyer, in the presence of you (the interpreter), and two other gentlemen. And when was that? — I think on the'sccond or third day after my arrival. How long have you been here ? — I don't know, but I think about a fort night. Who brought you here ? — Signor Capper. How did you corae ? With Mr. Capper alone, or were there other persons along with you ? — I went as far as Boulogne with tt certain Andriatsi, who had been two limes at the inn to take me. Who is Andriatsi ? — He was a person sent by Colonel BttOWN from Milan. To accompany you on your journey ? — ^Yes. I take it for granted you have received uo money ?— I did not wish for ftny, but he gaoe me some. You did not wish for any money ? — He told roe to take this, and gave me S gold Napoleons and 11 francs. That is not an answer. But it is true, then, that you were exarained here and at Milan, and that your examinations were reduced to -.vriting ? Your depositions were written down at Milan, and you have been examined again since your arrival in England ? — Yes. Then il is a mistake of the Attorney-General, I believe, that the room Of Bergami did open into the dining-room ? — That is not true. The 5o&'c«Vor-Ge7(er«Z objeeted to the question in that form, and several ho- ble lords seemed to support the objection. ^. Mr. Williams. — If in cross-examinations I hasre heard such a question -put once, I have heard it 300 times, and I might multiply that by 500. At the request of the Lord Ciutncellor, the question was repeated. The Solicitor-General. — My learned friend is entitled to put questiotu to the witness, but not to make assertions. The Lord CkanceUor,--\n cross-examination it is often the practice to put in the form of an assertion what has been proved by the exaraination-in-chlef. ,Mr. WiUiams was abdut to put the question again to the witiiesis,- wheti The Earl of Liverpool interposed, and put at to -their Lordships, wbether they would allow the counsel to make assertions that the witness had caid- what he had never stated. They should first see whether the fact alteged in this assertion was in the minules of the witness's evidence. The LardChanceUor.— I ha'^e said that tbe counsel may, on cross-examina tion, put in the shape of an assertion an interrogation respecting an fiinswer given in the leading exami-nation ; but cafe must be taken to put only what the witness has said. Mr. Williams, — As I have obtained (Jieti-nctly fiiera the witness that he was examined abroad, that tbat exafliinailon was committed to writing, that irf has been examined since his arrival in this country— and that, of counie «m the Subject, of his present examination— *I am desirous to point out to .Jicur Lordships that his statement this day, representing that the room of Seii^mi did not enter into the dining room, but into the room eC the Countess Oldi, must hav&%6'en a deviation fir^flu h«s answers on hi8f$rmer«Ka»Bin{twhtch formed the ground of the Attorney-General's instructions. 182 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The Solicitor General said it was all fouhded on a mistake ef his, for here was the paper before him (the depositions of the witness, we presume), which agreed exactly with the evidence now given. The Lord Chancellor said; that the departure of the Attorney-General frora his instructions was a nmtler of argument, but nol of evidence. Mr. Williams said he would not then press the question. Did the door of Bergami's room open - not open into the dining-room, but — into the bed-room of his sister, the Countess df Oldi ? — Yes, into the bed- roora of his sister. State the party that carae to your hotel before the Princess of Wales — the names of the party? -The order came from ihe Vice-Governor of the Cor poration to prepare apartments for her Royal Highness. What were the names of the last guests before t;ie arrival of the Princess of Wales ? — It is not possible for me to remember. One I do remeraber — a raan of the narae of Pellet, a merchant and manufacturer of watches, from Neuf- cbatel. Who composed the party that came after the Princess of Wales ? — It is im possible for me to remember : I can't remember; if I were at home, there is a book in whicb the names of all the strangers are entered. Was the Princess of Wales there during a Sunday ? — I don't remember. You can't remember whether she was there on a Sunday, nor the day on which she carae, nor that -on which she went away? — 1 do not remember: from the book every thing is known. And that you left behind ? — ^The book is at Trieste, where the names of strangers are put down. Do you remerabei: if the Princess went to the opera? — She did. Was she ever more than once to your knowledge in this grand hotel ? — That was the first time she ever was. Has she ever been raore than thatone lime in her life ? — Once only. Tbe wiiness was here re-examined by the Solicitor-General. What has become of the servant-maid Maria Mora? — I believe she is gone to Jerusalem ; all I know is, thai she asked leave to go there last spring, and I have not seen her since. What has become of the male-servant? — I do not exactly know. Look at that gentleman [Mr. Maule, Solicitor of the Treasury,) and say whether you know him ? — Yes, I do. , Did Mr. Maule take down in writing what you said when you were before examined ? — He did. Where was it that the sum of 8 Napoleons and 11 francs was given to you? — In a house at Bologna. At what lime was it after you bad left Trieste ? — I cannot remeraberexactly. Will you endeavour to recollect? — I think it was on the 28th of June. Doyou consider that you shall lose any thing by being absent frora your place of residence and occupation ? — Yes, a raaterial.loss. Is tbe loss you apprehend greater than will he corapensated by the 8 Napo- leans and 11 francs, wbich you say were paid to you at Bologna? — Much greater: I derived more profit from my own business. The Solicitor-General remarked, that he was unwilling to take up their Lordships' time unnecessarily ; but it might be important that their Lordships^ should here refer to a preceding part of the evidence. If the room of which you have been sfieaking was covered with canvass, TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 1H3 how did you see info it? — I looked into it through a hole, in order that I might know when I was wanted, and to be exact in my service. But through what hole was it that you looked into the room ? — Through a key-bole which looked into the dining-room. By the Marquis of Buckingham, — Did Bergami's bed, during the time her Royal Highness and he lodged at your inn, appear to have been sleptin every night ? — Nobody could sleep there, for the bed was too small.* Where did the Countess Oldi sleep during this period ? — She sleptin No. 3. Did her bed appear lohave been slept in every night ? — I believe it did. Where did the servants and children sleep ? — In various parts of the house. Was Bergami's bed the only one which appeared not to have been slept in ? — I observed all the beds, and il was the only one. Are you sure that it was the only one whicb appeared not to have been slept in ? — It was the only one ; and 1 know it, because the sheets were in the sarae way when taken off as they were when they were put on. Was there any appearance in the pol de chambre, or otherwise, of a person having slept in the room ? — / cannot exactly say. The. question was here repeated. Was there any such appearance as I have raentioned ? — It is possible that there was such an appearance, but it may have been caused whilst Bergami was making his toilette. What was the condition of the beds of the other servants ? — They were in the usual way. By the Earl of Liverpool. — Was the keyhole fixed in the canvass, or was the canvass cut ? Mr. Williams objected to this form of putting the question. The Earl of Liverpool submitted, and said he would put his question in a different way. The witness had said that the canvass covered the whole room : did it also cover the keyhole ?^The canvass was open some little matter, as though the opening had been made with a knife. Was it then a very small hole? — It was small. Was it easy to see through it ? —Yes, very easy. Was it made for the common purposes of a keyhole, or a mere accidental rent in the canvass? — Itwas somewhat smaller than a keyhole, about half the size ; and it was necessary to close il from within, and not from without. What do you mean by closing or shutting il ? do you mean that it might be locked ? — Yes, it might be locked. How long have you been a waiter in the Hotel de Grand Bretagne, at Trieste? ¦7-Ever since it was established ; for the last nine years. Were there a door and keyhole through the canvass ? — There were. By Earl Grey. — In what manner was the keyhole fixed? — It was fixed during the day. Was there a separate canvass over the door, or did it cover the. whole roomf — Il passed round the room. Could the opening be seen by any person within the roora ? — I do not know. By the Marquis of Lansdown. — Was the secret door of which the witness speaks used generally, or only on particular occasions ?— When I was obliged * This suftcieiitl; accounts for Bergami not sleeping in hit own bed ; but the question is., where did he ikep i 184 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. to serve things at stated hours, I was in tlie habit' of looking through this key hole, in order to see if tbe parties were leady. Was the witness under the necessity of entering the room by any other door ? — I someiimes raade use of one, and soraetiraes of another. Did you ever use that door whilst the Princess was in the room ? — I do not recollect. By the Earl of Dara%.— Did not the witness recollect whether he ever used tbat door whilst the Princess vvas within,?- — I had no need to do so; I never did so. What icommunication was there between this roora and that occupied by Bergami ? — The only communication was through the salle H manger. What was the thickness of the door to which you have been alluding? — It was abotjt an inch, or about the thickness of my thumb. Did it open inwards or outwards ? — It sometimes opened from the room, and sometimes otherwise. By the Lord ChamseUar. — The witness has said, in his cross-examination, that he must continue a waiter if he did not gain the law-suit : he wished to know lo what suit or cause the witness alluded .' — I have given in a memorial for tbe purpose of getting an inn, by means of some protecti(?n ; I do not know yet whether I shall succeed, or whether some one else will get it. What do you mean by the words "sorae protection?"—! know that others wished lo get the inn from me, and by means of acquaintance wilh the owner. By the Earl of Rosebery^ — Why did the witness, if he had suffered, or was suffering a loss, express a wish not to accept raoney from the government? This question gave rise to a short discussion, and was finally withdrawn. ' By the Earl of Kifigston.-^~OiA the witness suffer any loss by coming h?re? —Yes ; I conceive so. Im what room did Bergami sleep ? — I do not know. Yau have said that Bergami did not occupy his own bed : what bed then did he occupy ? — I do not know ; but I suspect. The witness was here admonished that he must not state any of his sus picions. Tbe Earl of Liverpool su jested the propriety of withdrawing the question, as he could not consider it to be a fair onein any podnlof view. The question was accordingly withdrawn, and the answer struck out. By Lord Elknborough.— When the door, which was called secret, was opened by the witness, did he push it, oi draw it towards him ? — When I Opened the door into tbe salle d manger, I drew it that way. Were the different doors painted alike ?-^yes, they were; they werepaijited at the same time. fly a Peer, whose name we could not leam.— Was the secret door of the same height as the wall? — Yes, it was. Was it covered with canvass ?— Yes, it was. Was it the usual custom for sorae attendant on the Princess to order and arrange the apartments ? — Yes, I believe so. Here the examination of this witness was brought to a close. On the motion of Lord Mehilk, leave bf absence for a few days' was gyanted to Cafjtain Briggs. The witness next called was lane Barbara Kress, a smart dressed young woman. . ' TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. , 185 A German interpreter, named George iniliam Kulmnnter, was sworn to in terpret. The yiWor»^-Gff(fr — The minister,, our minister. What minister?— I cannot tell what. I said to him that I was to be com pensated for the loss of my situation. [The second interpreter, Mr. Goltermann, said, that the words of the wit ness were, " I said that I should lose my place by it ; and that I must receive some compensation."] What rainister is it you speak of? — The Duke of Birgsted; who said, that if I did not go voluntarily I should be forcbd. Who is the Duke of Birgsted ? — Minister, as far as I know. Whose minister ? — I cannot say. Is he not rainister to the Grand Duke of Baden ? — I do not know if he is minister for foreign affairs, or for the interior. [The interpreters differed upon this point, the second understanding the witness to mean that she did not know whether the Duke of Birgsted was minister to the Grand Duke, or ambassador for some other place.] Do you mean to say that you do not know whether he is one of tbe Grand Duke's ministers, or a foreign minister residing at his court i — Probably. I do not know. I only know his name. I have not had any business with the gentleman except this. How did you see him ? — He called for me. Do you mean to say that he sent for you.' — ^Yes. Did he come to the rooms in die inn where you lived ? — Not the Duke of Birgsted. Did not Baron Von Reigle come to the inn to look at the rooms while you were there ?— I did not see him. Did you not know that he was there ? — I cannot say ; I have never seen him. Did you see, after the Princess left the inn, any other gentleman come to look at the rooms ? — I had seen no one, except Baron Von Grimms who fcame to the rooms, and walked about them. How long after the departure of the Princess ? — ^I do n6t know. 208 TRIAL OF the QUEEN. How long had Monsieur Von Grimm lodged in the inn before the Princess- came? — I cannot say. I paid no attention to this ; I had other business. What part of the house did Monsieur Von Grimm lodge in .'—Before the Princess arrived he lived in Nos. 12 and 13 ; afterwards in. 13 and 14. Did he not give up No. 12 for the accommodation of the Princess .? — Yes; as far as I have seen. Did he not return after the Princess left, and go into No. 1 2, and look a^ what was there ? — Yes. He ran about ; went through the apartments, and took the key of the room. Was any one with him when he came to make this inspection ? — When he ran about in the room there -were two other gentlemen with him ; one was his brother. Who was the olher > — I cannot say. Was he a German, or an Englishman ? — I do not know ; 1 did not hear him speak; I paid no attention. Who is Baron, or Monsieur, Vcm Grim? — As far as I know he is ambas sador from Wirtemberg. What is his brother ? — I cannot say this either. How often had you seen the Princess before the day when you say you went into the room and saw her with Bergami ?-— I have seen her \ery little. I had too much occupation to pay much. attention to her. Did you not wait upon her at breakfast in the morning ? — No. Did you never see the Princess at breakfast in the morning ?~ I saw her one morning when I went with a cloth to clean something in the room. Was it after that that you saw the Princess with Bergami i — Yes. Do you mean to say, that you saw the Princess with Bergami after you had been called in at breakfast in this way, or before? — After. They had spilled something whicb I was ordered to clean away. Was it after you had been called in in the morning to wipe that slop that you sayv the Princess and Bergami in the evening ? — Yes, after. Where did the Princess dine on the day of the evening on which you saw her in the room with Bergami ? — I cannot say this. I do not know. Did she dine in the inn ? — No, Ihave not seen her. They did not dine with us. Did they ever dine in the inn during the whole time Ihay were in yom" house ? — I have never seen it with respect to dinner ; I have seen them only at breakfast. , ¦« Mr. Brougliam observed a young man standing by the side of the Attorney- General, of whose busitiess and situation he wished to be informed. The Attorney-General, — The young man is an interpreter; but I can assure - your Lordships that he has spoken to no one but myself. Mr. Brougham did not mean to impute any improper interference. Examination continued. Will you swear that they dined once in the inn during the time they were there ? — I cannot swear to it, because I have not seen them dine there ; I have not paid attention to it ; I had more business. Will you swear that the Princess and Bergami did not dino at court every day while they were in your house ? — I cannot know if they dined at couiit, or where they dined. Did you see the Princess and Bergami, and the rest -of the suite of h*r Royal Highness, go to court during the; time tliey were there f-^I have seen them twice, go out in a carriage; but whether they wait to couitldonot know. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 309 Have you seen the Grand Duke come to the inn to wait upon the Princess.' — I have seen the Grand Duke and several other gentlemen come up to the Princess. Mr. Bi-ougham wished to ask Mr. Goltermann, the interpreter, whether the witness had ever been examined by him out of court? Mr. Goltermann repVied in the negative. To a second question he answered that he had never seen the witness until Friday last, nor since then, until the present time. Examination resumed. What do you mean by "come up to the Princess?" — I can say nothing about it. Do you mean to say that they came to pay their respects to the Princess ? — - Yes, probably they came to make their court. Did you happen to .see them come so more than once? — Only once. It was just as I was going down stairs that the gentlemen were coming up stairs. [Here again a difference arose between the interpreters.] Mr. Goltermann said that the sense which the witness raeant to convey was — Mr. Brougham did not wish for the sense ; he desired to have the words of the witness. Did you ever happen to see the Grand Duke corae more than once to visit the Princess ? — Only once. When was that? — And another gentleman came with him. Where did the Princess receive the Duke ?— I saw that they went up stairs ; and then I went up to the top story. Do you mean to represent that the Grand Duke and his suite passed to 'visit the Princess at the moment when you were coming out of the roora ?— -No. I have seen that they went up ; and I went dovvn stairs, and again up. Do you mean to say that the Grand Duke and his suite carae immediately after you left the roora where the Princess was ?— I cannot say if it was on the same day, or if it was .sooner or later. Will you swear that the Grand Duke did not come on that day to pay his respects ? — I cannot say; I am not alone in the house, and I had occupattion to pay attention to. Who was it gave you the order to go to the room to carry tbe water i—r Nobody did tell me to do so. It was my business ; wbicli I knew, and I did it every evening. When you saw the bed on one morning as you have de.scribed, was that at the time when you were making the bed ? — Yes. When it was to be made ? — J had nothing otherwise to do with the bed. Had you before, on that morning, made any of the other beds in the house ? — No : this was the first, when they left it ; except the bed of my mas ter and his wife. When you say " they left it," do you mean to represent that those who had slept in it had lefi it ? — Yes ; in No. 12. ..Was there any one else in the room at the time when you made the bed ? — :Tl$ere was no one in the room besides a servant in a gray coat, who came into the room. Did he come into the room while you were cleaning it out ? — Yes, of course, while I was in it. He came to assist me In turning Uie mattress. Who was this servant ? — 1 cannot say. There were two of them : but I have not observed them close. I do not know to whom they belojDged, Have you ever seen them before ? — The servants ? Yes-^I never saw them before, only at the tirae when the Priacess wss there. 210 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Have you ever seen them since she left? — No ; I have seen none of them since she left. Did you ever see any of them in the room at any time when you- were ma king the bed, except on that day ?— I do not know. I never came into the room except in the morning ; therefore I do not know if they were' there or not. Did you not make the bed every morning? — The bed in No. 12 I made every morning. -, Did you see either one or both of the same two servants there on any other morning while you were making the bed ? — I have now and then seen one of them in the rooms. Did any one of tbem assist you in making the bed upon any day except on the day you have stated ? — Yes ; now and then one came into the room, and assisted me. Sometimes he remained a few minutes in the room, sometimes he went out. ' Have you any doubt that those were servants in the suite of the Princess ? — The servants came with her ; probably they belonged her, or they would not have come with her. Did they not go away with the Princess as well as come with her ? — As far as I saw, they went away with her as they came. Was one of them a Jager ? — I do not know this : one of them had a green coat; but, if he was a Jager, I cannot tell; I never asked him. When you had the conversation wilh Baron Birgsted about compensation for coming here, what did you say to him when you demanded it ? [The reply of the witness was interrupted, and general confusion created, by the sudden indisposition /)f the Earl of Hardwicke. Immediate assistance was procured, and his Lordship, as we were informed left the House. Order being restored, the examination proceeded] what did you say to the Baron?— I said "Your excellency, must I ga? If I do not (must), I cannot leave here. . I am a married woman, and I have other business to attend tb." What answer did his excellency make to that? —He said, if I should not go, I would beybrcei; then I answered, " I will go ; and God may settle the business as he pleases." [Here the witness, probably from the heat of the apartment, became un well. A glass of water was given to ber ; and after sitting down for a few minules, she was enabled to proceed.] . ^When you asked for the compensation for coming, what did the Baron say ? 1 —-He said he could not give me any thing ; that I should leave it to the GENTLEMEN, and he had no doubt that they would recompense me when I came here. Did he not also say that you should be recompensed when you got home again from here ? — No. Have any of your family a promise of any thing ? — No. Will you swear-that no proraise was given to your husband, or to any of your family ? — I can swear tbat nothing has been promised to me ; and I think that nothing has been promised to my husband, or he would have told me of it. The Earl of Liverpool wished to know whether the word used by the wit ness had been rightly translated " recompense ?" The Earl of Xatt&rifa/e asked whether it -was the same word which had previously been translated " compensated ?" Mr. Kersten said that it was not. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 211 Th^^ishop of Peterborough apprehended that there was a material differ ence between recompense and compensation. The word, as he understood it, meant a reward for service ; the other, an atonement for loss. Sorae desultory discussion ensued as to the sense in which the word had been employed by the witness. At length Mr. Brougham proposed the fol lowing question : — Were the 16 ducats which you got for going to Hanover in the nature entscltadigung {compensation), or of belohnung (recorapense) ? — I cannot say. It was for ray going to Hanover ; therefore it might be eitlier. As what do you consider the one ducat you received f — I consider that as given for the time I lost; therefore as compensation. How far had you to go from the inn to see that ducat gentleman ? — Perhaps half a quarter of an hour's walk. How long did you remain with hira ? — I saw hira twice. The first time I spent but a short tirae with hira, for I had other business to attend to. How long did he stay the second time? — Not long at all. I was just on the stairs when he carae in, and I went away. What was the gentleman's narae that you saw ? Was any of thera called Mandeville — or Man Devil— (a laugh) — or any narae of that sort? — I do not know that. Or Montville ? — I cannot recollect. What do you generally get, as chambermaid, from a person who sleeps a night at your inn, when he goes away in the morning ? — What is given goes into a common purse, and is divided amongst the waiters. What have you got, for half a year, as your share of that common purse ?— It was divided quarterly. » How much have you received quarterly from that common purse ? — Some times 18, sometimes 20, sometimes 30, according to the number of strangers we had at jhe inn. Eighteen, 20, or 30, what ? ducats? — No, florins. Do you know a placexalled " the Glass-house," near the gates of Carls ruhe ? — Yes, I do. It is a manufactory of glass. Is there not a place that goes by that name near the gates of Carlsruhe, tbat serves for a pleasure garden ? — Yes, many people go there. Have you ever been there? — Yes, I walked there for pleasure. Have you ever been there before you had a husband ? — I have been there with the person who is my husband, He came with rae. Were you ever there with any body else, or alone ? — I have been there with my husband and more servants and maids. Have you ever been there without your husband, and with any body else, or alone ? — Never without my husband, never with any body else. Were you ever there alone before you had a husband?— Never, except with my husband. That is not an answer. Were you ever there before you knew your hus band? — I went therewith my brother and sisters. That was by day, and never at night. Now, about what time used you, in a morning, to make the beds of the inn at Carlsruhe? — Sometimes at 10, sometimes at 11, when gentlemen came down. - Was it as soon as the gentlemen came out of the room that you went up ? — Many times I went in whep, they were there. Now, after you had seen, the Princess in Bergami's room in the evening, did you not go to see whether the Countess of Oldi was in her room ?— No ; 212 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. I carried itntttediately the water to No. 5, and there they were itu^ibg. The Countess lived at No. -5. Did you not go to No. 5, in order to see whether 4he Countess was there > -^¥es, I was there. - I ask, did you not go there for the_purpose of sMihg that the CounteSS was there ? — I went and saw it was tie PvBcei^ This answer having no relevancy to the question, a noble Lord was pro ceeding to put a fresh interrogatory, when Mr. Brougham submitted to their Lordships, tbat when a doubt arose as to what the answer was, the proper course was to call on the witness to repeat the answer, and not to put a new question. The question was then repeated :^— Did you not go to the Countess's roora for the purpose of seeing whether she was there ? — No, I went to carry the water there. Mr. Brougham.'— In the answer she gave before, such of your Lordships as ttwdcrstand German must observe, that she mentioned something dbout the Princess ; but now she says not a word relative to her. T^e Interpreter. — She repeats half sentences every time she answers a <{a€.stion, which divides the attention frora the raain object of ber testimony, and renders it difficult to collect it. Did you not go to the Countess's room for the purpose of seeing if she were there? I went and just saw the Princess. I just carried the water there. The Lord Chancellor, — Interpreter, you will be so gdod as to observe, that it is not your duty to connect the meaning of what the witness says, but to repeat her exact words, Mr. Brougham,- — And, if she repeats words twice, do you also repeat them. Will you swear, on the oath you have taken, that you did not go to that room in order to see that the Countess was there ?— I went up ther« to "carry the water, because I must do it, and I did it every evening. Put the question again. Will you swear, by the oath you have taken, that you did not go to that room, in part, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Countess of Oldi was there ? — I can say that I did not go for that purpose. What is her answer? — That she can say, or cannot say, that she went there for that purpose ? — I cannot say that I did not go for that purpose. Will you swear, on the oath you have taken, that you have never told any person that you did go to the room of the Countess, for the purpose of .seeing whether she was there or not ? - I cannot recollect. I have not thought iehethtr I have said so io any body. Will you swear that you never had any conversation with any person about your going irt-to Madame Oldi's room on that night ?— I can swear that I never had a conversation with any body about that matter — namely, whether I went there for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Countess of Oldi was there or not. Mr. Brcrugham here complained, that a question was put by the interpreter, which he had not asked ; and he contended that it, and tbe answer, How many men did you employ ? — Different numbers, sometimes 20, 25, 30, &c. While you were employed at the Villa d'Este, did the Princess of Wales and Bergami reside there? — When I went there they were at the Villa Villani. Did they afterwards come to the Villa d'Esle ? — They did. Did you ever see them on the lake at the Villa d'Este ? — I have. Were they in a canoe ? — Yes. Have you seen them together in it? — I have. Alone or with other persons ? — Alone. Once, or more than once? — More than twice. ' Did you ever see them together in the garden at the Villa d'Este.'— I have. Have you ever seen them together alone in the garden ?— Yes. Have you seen them alone in the garden once, or more than once, or seve ral times? — I have seen them more than once. What were they doing? — I have seen the Princess in a chair which bad wheels, and Bergarai behind pushing it. Having seen the Princess in the chair, and Bergami pushing it in the man- .ner you have described, did you ever afterwards see any body else intbechair? -^I have not ; I have only seen thera that tirae alone. Was any body else with thera at ihe tirae you speak of, or were they alone? —The Princess and Bergami were alone. Did you ever see Bergami in the chair ? — Y'es, .1 have, and the Princess be hind pushing him. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 2(il At the time the .Baron was in the chair, whom did you say pushed ?— Tbe Princess. Am I to understand that they were at (his time alone ? — They were alone ; Verona came and brought the chair. Have you seen them walking in the garden alone ? — I have. Have you seen them more than once so walking in Ihe garden ?— More than once. In what manner have you seen them walking? were they separate or to gether ? — They were arra in arm. Have you seen them walking in this manner more than once, or frequently ? I have seen them more than once, more than three times. Do you remember being at work in the grotto al the Villa d'Este ? — Yes. What were you doing? — I was making a cornice for the rotunda, or round room. Was there a room behind or adjoining lo this rotunda ? — There was a room behind. While you were at work did you hear any body in that adjoining room ?,— Yes, I heard somebody enter. After you heard somebody enter, what more did you hear ? — I heard soiper body corae in, and I stooped down under my scaffold lo see who it was. Whom did you see ? — I saw Bergami and the Princess. What did you see them do ? — They looked at the figures. What figures ? — There were two figures in the room : one of Adam, on the right; and the other of Eve, on the left, ."idam had a fig-leaf below the navel. Tbe Princess and Bergarai looked at the figures and laughe/i. Was there any fig-leaf to Eve ? — There was. How were the fig-leaves fi.sed ?— ^They were fastened by a vyire, so that they could be put aside. What did the Princess and Bergarai afterwards do ? — The Princess and Ber gami put aside tbe fig-leaves, looked under, and laughed. , . • Where were you situated when the Princess and Bergami did this ?— I was looking from behind a pilaster under the scaffold towards, them, and wheh I saw thera coraing I reraounted ray scaffold. How far were they from you? — The distance from the room where I was might be about 10 or 12 braccie (yards.) , . What kind of communication was there between the place in which ypu stood and the place where the two figures were ?— They were in the room, ad joining. (Here the witness made signs on the desk before him to point out the situation of the rooms.) The rooms joined by a corridor. There was ajoor on the right, and another on the left ; and in the middle pilasters. I put my self behind one of the pilasters to .look. Did you place yourself there in consequence of bearing somebody, come into tbe room ?— Yes. In that situation could you see the Princess and Bergami ? — I could. ' When the Princess and Bergami, removed the leayes in the manner you have described, what did they do? — ^Jhey walked together; looked sometimes at the one figure, sometimes at the othe>, and laughed. Do you remember being at the Villa d'Este when an entertainment was giveh on St. Bartholomew's-day ? — Yes. . At what time did you go home t — Sometimes at 12, sometiraes at one. Did you go through the garden .? — I had to pass through the garden to go to a place called— .^ in the' PfleM (the fields.) 32 2$^ TRIAL OB" THE QUEBK. Is the place you speak of a part of the Villa d'Este ?— ^Tes. Do ybu know Dominieho Bruzzo? — Yes; we have lived together. Do you know Nicolo Riccobari ? — No. When you were going through the garden in the evening to go homCj who was with you ? — Dorainico Bruzzo. Do you know at what hour you passed through the garden of the ViPla d'Este, to go home ? — About half-past one o'clock. (Here the interpreter was proceeding lo state the usual mode of reckoning time in Italy.] He was desired to ask the witness whether he meant Italian or French tme. The 'witness answered /toZzVm ff«!^, and the interpreter was required to tnins- ' late the Italian lime into English time. The Interpreter observed, that to make the calculation he had to consider the tirae of the year, as he must reckon from sunset. St. Bartholomew's day was, the 14th of AugUst; the lime would therefore be about nhie, or half- past nine in the evening.* . ' When you were passing through the garden did you see the Princess and Bergami ? — Yes. Where were they ? — They were at the bottom of a walk, sitting on a bench. Were they alone ?— Yes. Did you ever attend the theatre at Villa d'Este? — Yes. Did you ever see the Princess and Bergami performing together there ? — I have. Have you seen them performing together more than once ^ — Only ontfe. Do you recollect whet part the Princess played? — She \ierlbtmed the part of a. sick woman, j- , What part did Bergami perform ? — The Doctor.! ' The Solicitor-General observed, that it had been suggested to bim 4hat there was probably a mistake with regard to the interpretation of the lime at which the wiiness saw the Prince.ss and Bergami together in the garden. He un derstood that the mode of calculating time according to whi-Ch the interpre tation had been given was not followed over the Whole of ItaPy,' and p)ei'ha(is did not prevail at Cpmo. '^rt Broiigham said that the witness had already given a decided answer to that point. He had been asked whether he meant Italian or French time, add lie had distinctly answered Itatiano, T'he Solicitor-General w'is^eA, for the -sake of accuracy, tUMput atiothef ijues- tion : — When you saw (he Princess and Bergartai sitting together in the garden, on St. Bartholomew's day, how lone was it after s-unset ? — AboUt'an hourftiid a half. ¦ . I , ._ -'¦' ¦ ' 'r-iii , --'I r"- '-I'll "i l,"* ^. Hnw all, the gbdstly stdtiex of Mr. Attorney-64qeial in hi« openipgi sipeeish v wi$ii ou inspection. The bathing-story ; Mahomet's detestable and atrocious, afbi^tioa.y \i^,]i^sK\(f scene, whefl thq Bar nil w^s confined tQ,bis bed by ^icl^ness ; and, many other amusing adven tures, got up with a vaft deal of fngenuity, have now iJiskppeared, aiiU are (!0tisict6nsd;6nly as subjects 6? initocent plbasaiilry, by exhibiting, in « fayourablfe point of vifew, tb»ani)izing ]»)wer8 of tbe Attorney-Oeneial 9t erlgiaalr. iarenticiii- 81)4, lively and piictuFeiq;ue,4««lriptio& Tbe last fact almost that remqiQefi tf» be, (jjea^ed vpi, ip ^eompfi^h|^4 Ijy. tb^ s(oilfV<|ifa;;W. In^t^d 0^ theiPrinpessbeinfe^esai ijv tbi8 ^ardep^^, with h^r supposed pararadur, an hou.r^»fter MidriigHt, as slated in the opening speech, it appears that, ffim'the m^ii'et oi teepin'g time in Italy, it was only about an hour or an hour and a half afler'sunset on a saiBiaer's 6vW)ligi! f '^^'AftftoilUtl^-Geti^niL's^dlthe Count iisnyiyipuiferiba4.'tIlB (^uaeteit oiO \i»lmeti and ti!fftI'rin{ssa,!(ome;aft«',part, ¦ ' TRIAL OF THB QUEEN. 2(35 Cross-examined byDr. Lushington.. Were you ever examined on this business before? — I have, at Milan. At what time? — In the year 1818. By whom were you examined ?~By tbe advocate, Vilmarcati. Were there any other present 1 — Yes. Who were they'? — I do not know. Do you know Colonel Biown?— No. How came you to go to Milan ? — I was told to go. Who told you to go ?— The Governor of Milan sent for me, and tohJ me I wais to appear before the police. Did he send an officer of justice for you ?— No; he sent a courier. What was the courier's name ? — Rastelli. Did you know Rastelli before? — Yes. Where had you known him ?— At the Villa d'Este. Did he live with the Princess of Wales ? — Yes. Was bein her service as a courier?— He was chief equerry. (It was- after wards explained that the witness meant head-groom.) What passed between you and Rastelli when he came to you ?— He told rae to go to Milan. Was tbat all be told you ?— Yes ; he told me to go ; that I must go. Was that all ?— Yes. Did be say nothing else ? — No. How -long was he with you ?— He did not stay at all; he came to teU me I must go to Milan, and then went away. Ddd he tell you fbr what you were to go to Milan ?— No ; he only said I must go. When you went to Milan, for what purpose did you go ?'— I was told I must go, because I had been living with the Princess of Wales. Then did he tell you that you were to be examined about the Princess of Vfeites t—Be told rae F had been living at the Vilb d'Este, and' that I must go. Did you befbre tbat time speak to any body of the eireumstences you have now stated ? — No ; I can swear that. Did any person come to you before ^— No; I can swear- nobody evep came to mo htihtft. This questi*)* was repeated, and answered in the same maftner. How many men did you employ at the Villa d'Este?--At fi-rst 12or 14. Whea the Baron told! rae that more were waht«d, I got them. Were all these men sent to Milan ? — No, not one of them. , When you were exarained at. MMan, was your deposition taiseri dewn in wHting ? — It was. Sldyiou sign it ?¦ — I did. e Wm* you sworn? — Ye*-. , , WAo, sxvore you ?— The advocate, Vilmarcati. I» what manner did he swear you f—Hf whaf t said'y afndtPtold him- 1 was-. Were yott^worft on the cross N- Ytes) I took tbe cross I had about me at 'thailnmie^ and I kissed, it. Who were present 1 — ^Three or four persons. Do ywu know any of them*— Nth WeraBBy ^ tbemBnglish?— I beKevesome of Ifeem were. 224 TKIAt OF THE QUEEN. Were you ever told you should corae to England to give evidence ? — I was told so. , When were you told so ? — At the tirae I gave my depositions. By whom were you told so ? — By the persons who took them. How did they communicate it to you ? — They sent for me to say, that I must go before an English tribunal to prove \yhat I staled; and I said, very well, I was ready to go when ordered, as I had only the truth to tell. Are all your bills for work done at the Villa d'Este for the Princess paid ? -r-Yes. • , , Then you say there is nothing due to you for your work there ? — 'There is a little by the chief mason. „ You say not by the Princess ? — No. Who generally paid you ? — The chief mason. Who called on you to go over to England, to be a witness in this case ?— The governor said I must go, and I came. Who paid you for coming ? — I was paid nothing. Did you not receive any money for your expenses ?— Not as much as the price of a drop of water. Who then paid the travelUng, expenses? — The courier. You came, then, with a courier ? — Yes. Do you know his name ? — I believe his narae was Rastelli, who came with me from Milan to Holland, and an English courier brought me from Holland here. , From the time you signed the depositions, until now, did you ever speak to any body about them ? — I never spoke to any body about them; I never opened my mouth to any body on the subject. Were you ever employed by the Princess of Wales to make a monument? — No. ^, , The witness was ordered to withdraw, but he had been hardly taken from the bar, when the Attorney General ,intimated a wish to have him called back. He was accordingly replaced at the bar, and re-examined by tbe Solicitor General. Who brought you from Milan, to Holland? — Rastelli. Look at this gentleman neai' me, and say whether you did not speak to him about your depositions. (The Solicitor Generalherepoiuted at agentleman within the railing where he stood.) Mr. Brougham objected to this question. The svitness had already stated that he had not opened his raouth to any body about bis depositions since he made them at Milan; and it seemed to be the object of his learned friend now to present some gentleman to the wiiness with the view of -having the previous statement of that witness altered. This was, in fact, not to correct, but to cross-examine his own witness; a course which could npt, be was sure, be permitted by their Lordships. The iSo/?ciitness be read, and then we can settle the point respecting a new question, when it is put to the witness." The Solicitor Gpiernl remarked, that the question could ijot be put liniil notes of the shorl-hand writer were brought back. It Was suggested both by the Earl of Liverpool and tbe Earl of Lauderdale, that .tlie witness could in tho interim stand by, and another witness be called, Mr. Brougham said there could be no objection to that course. It was no fiHiIt of the short-hand writer that his notes were not on his desk ; for unless the notes were sent away several ijmes in the day, to be transcribed, there would be no means of furnishing the counsel at both sides with a copy of each day's evidence in rapid succession. But while lh6 witness stood by until the arrival of the notes, he had a right to ask his learned 'friends lo take care that the witness should have no communication with any body. The Lord Chancellor said the request was reasonable, and that a person must be placed with the witness during the interval, who could answer for his having no communication with any body before he was again brought to the bar. Another witness was called for, but several minutes elapsed, and no person appeared at the bar. The Earl of Darnley said, that their Lordships had a right lo expect the counsel for the crown to be prepared with their witnesses in due succesaon, without the intervention of such a delay as was now occurring. The last wit ness was called bach, and it seemed only as if to fill up a space before the other witness came. The Attorney- General disclairned any intention of calling back a witness merely to fill up tinie. ' The witnesses were near at hand ; but still there must be some time lost in bringing them op, as there was no place actually on the spot where they were required that could be appropriated to them. He again assured the noble Lord that the last witness was Called back by the desire of some of his learned friends, and not for any purpose of delay— ' The Lord Chancellor interriapted tho learned counsel, and said he must not reply to any observation made by one of tbjeir Loi'dships. The Earl of Darnley said, he did not mean to complain of the Attorney- General, but of the delay. The Marquis of Lafisdotim said, that whatever was the complaint, it could not be regularly replied to by counsel. Lord Grenville, in allusion to what had been said respecting inaceurBcies upon their printed minutes, w.as of opinion that more care ought to be taken in the printing. There certainly were inaccuracies, perhaps ffom the tafwdity with which the evidence 'was sent to press. It would be well to see if, in future, it could not be sent forth more correct. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 227 The next witness put to the bar was I e u o n y m u a M i a u D i , examined by Mr. P-IRKE. Where were you born ? — In Ital}'. Did you ever see the Princess of Wales there ? — I did. Were you at any time in her service ? — I was. How long ? — About two mqiiths. At what time? — From the end of the year I816 to the beginning of the year 18 1 7. In what capacity did you servo her Royal Highness ?-— I was director of the Princess's gardens. Do you know a person of the name of Bergami ? — I do. Did you know him in the Princess''s service ? — I did. Did you know hira before you saw him there ? — I did; I knew hira before 1 went 10 the Princess's. But did you know him before he entered her Royal Highness's service .>— I don't know when he entered tbe Princess's service. What were Bergami's circumstances when you first knew him ? were they rich or poor ?— He was a poor man. What situation did he fill ? — He was the man qf an excise-officer,''' whose duty it was to put the excise-marks on the wine-casks for the duty. How long was that before he entered the Princess's service ? — 1 don't know. How long was it before you saw him in the Princess's service ? — Three or four years, perhaps. Did you ever see the Princess and Bergami together? — I have. Did you ever see them walk together ? — I did. How did they walk ? — Arm in arm. How did they seem to behave towards each olher ? — They seemed to each other like man and wife. Did you see thera riding together in a carriage at any time? — Yes, I have. Did you ever see them in that sort of carriage called a Parenlevole ?— Yes. Will the witness describe in what manner they sat in this Pareijtevole ? — Bergami was sitting in the back part, and the Princess upon his thighs. Was there any ono else in the Parenlevole ? — Nobody. Did the witness ever see Bergami and the Princess in the kitchen togeiher ? jr-Several times. State what they were doing. — The^were eating, where the cook was sitting. ' (The interpreter, observed, this was the literal meaning of the witness's answer.) Were they eating from one and the same plate, or from two plates?-— Some times fr6ra one, sometimes fronfi two. Dy you know the gate \eading lo the great garden ? — I do. Do you recollect seeing the Princess and Bergami together near that gate ? -^Yes. How far from them were yon when you saw them together? — Twenty or thirty paces. Did you observe them doing iny thing together ? — I saw them once kissj t Very well ; supposing this true, the Baron did not fill a nlbre bumble tiffrce that! tasAy or tie " noble iords"" .who fill ti? sftuations of wine-fastefs, packers, guagers, smrchrrs, &t. I^rd EUeflbptpugh, who displays such an aniiiOUs desire to (wist every circutnsfiincy to the di^^dvaBllsige of fte Quefn, is stfll only a clerk in t^e Court Of King's Bench, artd ta's.xry of bis niible ftiends occupy situations of a far more htimble description. To be sure tHey ha»e ' enormoDS salaries. - . ' , where every pinotion is expressed with so much greater ardoiif, is only considered eqiiivalent to a sb^k'e of tbe bands in this cpunlry, But the fellow does not say they did kis^, only they made a' " sari If motion like kissing." ' " - > TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, 229 Did you hear the names of ihein?— No; then I did not; but afterwards I heard their names. Was the name of one of them Colonel Brown ? — I heard it was afterwards ; but at the lime I did not know it. Was tbe name of one of the others Mr. PoWell ? — I never heard; never, until five or six weeks afterwards. At that time I did not know it was. But di> you know now that one of those persons whom you saw was a Mr. Powell ? — ;1 have only heard so. How long did you remain at Milan ? — Two days. i Was that the only time you went there upon this business? — Yes. Wereyou examined upon it on both of the two days, or only on one of them ? — It was on the last of those days that they examined me. Was your examinalion taken down in writing? — Yes; they even made me sign and swear lo it. (A laugh.) Did you also swear to it? — They made me swear to it, but I did not know at the time tbat I was to come before any tribunal; if I bad known any such thing, I should not have signed it. ' Did you lake that oath upon the cross? — No ; they only told me, " Here' you must tell the truth; you must tell llie truth, neither more nor less ; you- uiust state only what you saw with your own eyes, \\ hat did you receive when you went to Milan, and stopped there for two days ? — They paid my expenses by giving me 20 francs : but I was obliged to add a franc of my own out of my own pocket. When did you leave Italy for the purpose of coming here ? — Upon the 29th of June last. Who came with yon ? — We were twelve. What were the names of them ?— I»don't know them except by sight. \Vas Majochi with you ? — Yes, the wife; the wife of Majochi only. Doyou mean that the wife came with you, or Theodore Majochi? — The wife of Theodore Majoclii. \Vho first told yon that you were to come to England ?— I first knew it when Rastelli came to tell me so. Who is Rastelli ? — A man in the service of the Princess. Was he in the service of the Princess when he came to you ? — No; be was no longer in her service. Do you know in whose service he ^«as at that time ? — I do not know. Do you know when Rastelli quilted the service of the Princess of Wales ?— • No. Did you know him whilst he was in her service ? — I knew him whilst in the service of the Princess, and I also knew him befpre. Recollect yourself; do you know that he was discharged from the service qf the Princess qf Wales for stealing corn? (Mr. Parke objected to this question, he apprehended the fact could not be assumed, and the question thus put. The question was repeated by the interpreter.) — I know nothing of this. But who spoke to you, to tell you that you were to corae to England, besides Rastelli ? — Colonel Brown. This Rastelli, did he take you to Colonel Brown ?-J-Riislelli came to tell rae so, upon the 15ib of June; but on the 27th a letter came, which obliged me to go to Milan. What agreement did Rastelli or any other person make with you for coming here ? Mr. Parie objected strongly to this question as an improper one. 230: TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Mr. TindetU maintained that he had a right to put it. Mr. Parke contended that be ought first to establish the fact that some agree ment was made, and then ask, when ? Mr. Brougham asked if his learned friend meant to say, that a leading ques tion was at no lime to be put during the progress of a cross-examination. Mr. Parke replied, that he did ; his learned friend (Mr. Tindall) had no right' to presume that any agreement was raade, and then ask as lo the particular. terras of it. He might first df all ascertain the fact by a direct question, or he might put it in this shape : — " Was there not an agreement made?" Tbe Lord Chancellor thought that,in strictness this question of counsel's could not be fairly put; but their Lordships did not appear to have any objection to it, and therefore it raight be proceeded with. The. last question was then repeated. — Ans. None ; there was none raade. Was there no agreeraent raade by you with any body else ? — I have made no agreement whatever. What, was your occupation at the time you left Italy ? — I was a writer. Then, do I understand that you have made an agreeraent with no one upon the subject of your coraing over here ? — I have made no agreement whatever. Have you had any proraises made to you that you should receive any thing for coming ?— None Then, have you left Italy, and your business there, without any promises whatever of remuneration or compensation ? — They have made me no promises either of compensation or remuneration. Have you seen Patruzzo since you came here ?— I don't know him. Have you seen Theodore Majochi since you came here ? — I have seen biip ; —yes. Has he told- you how he was examined here ? — He has lold me nothing. / Have you never spoken to him upon the subject? — VVe were talking togeth er, and he said, you will go up stairs through a door, and then you will see how malny people there are. (A laugh,) Did he not tell you that you would see two sels of counsel ; one on your left hand, and the other on your right ? (A laugh.) — He did not tell me tbit>. Has no other person pitt that into your head ? — Nobody. Did Theodore Majochi^dine wilh you yesterday ? — Yes. And sup with you at night ? — He did ^p with me. Has tbat been the casfe every day since you came to England ? , Have you lived together ever since you came to England ? — No. Have seen hira on most' days?— I have seen him, during the time I have been here, many tim,es. You have stated that you saw Befgami and the Princess together in a boat, upon tbe Lago di Como. I want to know whether there are not many houses] and villages upon the banks of the lake ? — There are ; many houses and villages. Is there not a great traffic kept up by boats passing backwards and forwards across the lake ? — Boats pass and repass, certainly. I believe there are no roads round the lake ; are there ? — There are roads upon which the company pass. But is not the regular traffic or intercourse from ^ne side of the lake to tlie other kept Up by boats ? — There are always litany boats going to and frO ; some laden witji wood, some with charcoal. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 231 'The carriage you have described Bergami and the Princess to have been in, was it an open carriage ?— .It was. an open carriage, or rather a small chair. Mr. Pai'ke. — Ask hira about what may be the dimensions of the Lago di Como ; what its size is; its length and breadth ? — Its breadth is about a mile and a half, in the place I speak of; its length, beginning from Como, and taken as far as Savona, is nearly, I should think, 6o miles. The witness was then desired to withdraw ; and the other witness, Puolo Ragazzoni, re-examined. The Lord Chancellor ordered that part of the examination to be read over to tbe witness which related to whether he had been examined since ho came to England. (Among other things it was asked if he had ever seen his deposition since he had made it, or whether he had ever been examined or spoken to any per*- son on the subject, since that tirae; to all which it will be seen he had an swered in the negative.) The Lord Chancellor directed that any question to be put to the witness should be regularly put in Italian, and the answers rendered as before; The Earl of Lauderdale said, the witness had never said that be was not examined in England ; but that he had not conversed with any body on the subject. The short-band writer again read the extract from his notes. The Earl of Liverpool thought the question which was intended to be put (we believe on the suggestion of the Marquis of Lansdown) to the witness was a perfectly fair one. He had in fact, been already asked, " Have yoU been examined in England ?" The witness had answered that he never had been examined since. The question, therefore, to be put in the fairest and shortest way, would be — have you ever been examined in England previously to appearing here ? The Lord Chancellor then put the following question : — Does the witness mean lo say, that he has never been examined in England previousfy to his appearance here this morning ? — There vvas somebody who took me into a roora, and asked me whether it was true that I had to say so and so ? And I said, yes. The Lqrd Chancellor. — Ask him when was tbat ? — I don't know the day. Mr. Brougham humbly suggested that a more specific answer should be given. The Earl of Liverpool wished the question to be followed up, and would ask, therefore, " How many days, or about how many days, ago was it ?" — It was last week : I don't know the day, but it was some one in tbe last week. Mr. Brougham, — Will your Lordships ask the witness if the person who took him into the roora had a paper in his hand ? On the question being put by the Lord Chancellor, the witness answered, yes ; he had a paper in his hand, and was reading from the paper, and ask ing rae if it were not so and so ? and I said, yes> when I knew it was true. The Marquis of Lansdown remarked, that as the witness had said, in an swer to a former question, that he never was examined since his examination at Milan, and he now acknowledged having been examined in England^ be wished lo know the reason why he had given the former answer ? The LorH Chancellor said, the taoft tegular way would be to read the ^32 TRIAL OF THE. QUEEN. -question and answer alluded to by the noble Marquis to the witness, aud tlien. ask hira what he meant by tbat answer. The Earl of Lauderdale thought tbat, in order for the witness to understand that question, the time and place to which his former answers referred should be stated. After so long an examination, it would be impossible for him to recollect those circumstances, unless the previous questions were hkewise read to him. The Earl of Liverpool really thought there could be no doubt upon the matter at all. In the first instance the witness said be had not been examined since he was at Milan; but when the question was put in a more specific manner, as td his being exarained in England, he said yes. After a few words from the Earl of Lauderdale, the Lord Chancellor, and the Marquis of Lansdown, Earl Grey observed, that the only way 'would be for their Lordships to call to the witness's mind what he had said : he could not see what good could be done by repealing ihe previous questions recommended by the noble Earl (Lauderdale.) The only way for them to put the question of the noble Marquis (Lansdown) was thisT— ^' You have stated, that you signed your de position at Milan; also that, subsequently to the signing of it, you have not been examined since. What da you mean by not being examined since?" To answer this clearly and distinctly, would be the best way of meeting the question proposed to be put. The Witness. — " I was thinking, that you were asking -me whether I had been examined at Milan since, before I carae to England ;, and I was not exarained since making that deposition, at Milan." The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, havjjig asked, if he raight send away his notes, a desultory conversation ensued, in which Lords Grenville, Lauder dale, and Redesdale took part on the necessity of being assured that the notes were taken correctly, and that the printed minutes should be compared with the notes by Mr. Gurney, and furnished to the counsel with the utmost promptitude. It was then suggested, that IVIr. Gurney might compare, from time to time, the printed evidence with bis short-hand notes. Mr. Gurney, as we understood him, said, that he bad taken that course as far as the printed evidence had gone. His own notes were taken upon oath ; and, except as to the spelling of the names, he had no doubt of their accuracy. Paolo Oggione was then sworn. The wiiness was a man of decent appear ance, and about 30 years of age. Examined by the Attorney-General, — What countr^an are you? — Of Lodi. Were you ever in the service of the Princess of Wales ? — I have been. In what capacity ? — Under-cook, How long were you in the service of her Royal Highness?— Almost a year. At what places ? — At Villa d'Esle, and at tbe Barona. HoAv long have you quitted the service of the Princess?-^! quitted itin 1817. Did you know Bergami ? — I -did. Where did you first know hira ? — At Lodi., How long since ?— In the year 1808 or 1809. tRlAt OF THE QUEEN. 235 In what situation was Bergami when you first knew him ?— I have seen him about Lodi, and I have seen him in prison. > Where have you seen hira in prison ?. — Mr. -Denman was unwilling to, interrupt the examination, if their Lordships "thought that the ciicumslanco of Bergami's having, been in prison five years before the occurrence of any fact which connected him wilh the present case, carae properly before the considfci-ation of the House. Their Lordships would remember, that no such circumstance had been mentioned in the open-> ingspecch of the learned Attorney-General ; but if the House thought that it was properly inttoduced in support of the bill„ ho, (Mr. Denman) of course, could not obj.ect to it. The Attorney-General thought himself justified in asking, where the withess had seen Bergami in prison. The question was not very important. Examination resumed.— Was Bergami in the service of. the Princess at the same time wilh you ? — He was. , - What was his situation in the service of her Royal Highness at the. tim^ you were there ? — Baron. You .say. he was a baron ; but I ask what was his situalion in the house hold ? — Chief commander over the household. Have you ever, during the time you were in the service of the Princess, seen Bergami and her Royal Highness together ? — I hsvvc. Where?— Walking out; and in the kitchen. In what way have you seen them so walking? — Arm in arm. Did you ever see the Princess riding? — I have. Has any one- been with her when she was riding? — The Baron, and one of the servants. You have said that you have seen the Princess in the kitchen with Bergami : in what way have they come into the kitchen? — Arm in arm. For what purpose have they come into the kitehenl"— Sometimes to come and eat soraething. » ¦ . • , By " soraetiraes" doyou mean many times, or few ? — Many limes. Had they any thing to eat ? — Yes. When you were at the Barona, did you ever know balls given by the Prin cess there ?— I -have. ' Who used to attend those balls? — Principally people of low rank and condition. Did the Princess use to dance with these persons ?— -No, she danced by herself, and sometimes vvith Bergami. Biit did she dance at the same tirae with these country people, and low people, who were there at these balls ?— She did. Doyou know the wife of the innkeeper at St. Christopher's? — I do. Was she at these balls ? — She was ; she came twice. - Do you' knew any other woman who came to these balls ?— There came the daughter of the farmer who hired the Barona. What do you mean by " hiring the Barona ? Do you mean the tenant of the farm ? — Yes, the man who hires the land of the Barona. In what rooms did these dances take place? — In thedining-roQm. ' * It is not many years ago since his- gr-ocioa* Majesty, George IV. condescended (so the Morning Chronicle expressed it) to go down and regale himself,, with the cook, and the scullion, and sundry others, .in the kitchen at Brighton. The singularity of this royal frolic called fdrth many ingenious caricatures at the time . 34 f£34 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, Were any of the other rooms used upon those oecasioni ? — There were, , What other rooms? — It was the room next to it, which lay upon the stairs- vvhich led to the room of the Princess. At those balls did any of the nubility of the neighbourhood attend ? — No. Have yon seen the Princess and Bergami together at the Barona ? — 1 haye. Where? — Walking; and in the kitchen. Were they walking alone, or with other persons? — I have seen them altinc. Do you know a person named Mahomet ?— I do. Have you ever seen him perform a dance? — I have. Have you seen the Princess present at any time when Mahomet was per forming this dance ? — The Princess was present. In what way did Mahomet dance at that time? — He did this. [Here the witness imitated a sort of castanet dance.] Were those the only motions he made? — [Witness distorted his limbs, but we were unable to catch his meaning.] — I have seen him sometiraes, at dif ferent times, maikng the same gesticulation. Did Mahomet at tbose tiraes do any thing to any part of his dress ? Mr. Denman. — At the one tirae, it should be when the Princess was presents The Attorney-General. — Have yon seen the Princess present at one tirae, or more than one timp, while this was performing? — I have seen her more than once. . Where ?— At D'Este, and at the Barona. Was it in the house, and in what part of the house, when the Princess was, present ?— Twice in the kitchen ; at other times in the court. Upon ihose occasions when the Princess was present, did Mahomet do any thing with any part of his dress? — He took his breeches and made thera into a roll, so. In what position was that roll ?— ^With the breeches twisted round just behind — no, before, so. ^ [Thfi motions of the vvitness being directed' towards their Lordships, were not distinctly seen from below the bar.] When the Princess was present, can you say whether she saw Mahomet ?— She did. Did you see her do any thing upon that occasion ?— She. laughed. Cross-examined by Mr. IVilde. — When did you leave the service of the Princess?— In 1817. Were you discharged for drunkenness ? — iNo. Did you go away of your own accord ? — When she set out to go to Rome, I was left behind wilh six others. Were you discharged at that time ? — I was ; my discharge was when she set out, until a new order, which new order never carae. Did you receive any pay from the Princess after that time ? — (No. WTiat service did you next enter into ?— [A .long pause.] — I went into the service of a priest : but, I do not remember his name. Where did he live? — He was minister of the great hospital at Milan. Where did he live ? — At Milan. How long did you stay in his service ?^A yaar. And yoii do not know his name after living with him a year?— ;-I do not remember his name. When did you corae into bis service? — When I left the service of the J'rinccss. Uow soon after the Princess left to go to Rome ? — About six months. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 235 Do you mean that you were out of service for six months after you left the service of the Princess? — Now I remember the narae of the priest. It was Cassa Buurbonni. Do you raean that you were out of service six months ? — I do. Where did you live during that tirae ? — In my house. Where? -At Lodi. How did you support yourself during that tirae? — On my house. How did you support yourself during that tirae? — I was economical with my moiiey. Are you a married man ? or, were you a married man at that time ? — I was. Had you any family? — One child. Do you mean that you had saved money enough to live for six raonths without labour, and to support your family ? — I do,. Did your wife or child come to England wilh you ? — No. Where are they ? — At Lodi. In what service were you with the person you have mentioned, the minis ter? What was your employment ? — Footman and cook. How long did you live in that service? — .Mmost a year. What was your next service? — With the vice-prefect of Monsa. Where were you when you were first applied to for inforuiation on this -subject ? — I was living with an architect. Where did he live ? — At Milan. Who applied to you? — The police. Had you ever raentioned any of the circuuistances which you have Stated to-day before that time? — I had not. Are you quite certain that that application was made to you before you had said any thing upon the subject ? — I never said any thing except when I was sent for. Were you examined at Milan ? — Yes. Was your e.'c'amination in writing ? — Yes. , Have you seen that examination since ? — I have not. Have you ever been examined since, either.at Milan or in England?— I have been examined also in England. Had the person who exarained you any paper from which he examined ?^ He did write, but I do not know what paper he had : he wrote down what I said. Did that person read a paper? — He did. Who applied to you to come to England ? — The government of Milan. Were you at that time with the architect ? — I was. Have you given up your place?— They have taken me to bring me here; therefore I was obliged to give it up. Do you know Rastelli ? — I do. Have you had any coramunication with him since you left the service of the Princess? — I have not. , Do you know Mqfochi ? — I know him here. How long have you been here? — I do not remeraber how many days. Have you seen Majoch't^ery day since you have been here? — Yes. And Rastelli ?— No. ' .You have, been describing some dance, who was present when that dance was performed? The Solicitor-General,' — Do you mean at the Barona? S3§ • TKIA.L OF THE QUEEJf. At the Barona. who was present? — •The princess and the Baron. Were you prfesent? — ^^I was. , ' , ' ' Anybody else?— There were many others; but I have not reflected — at-, tended — who they were. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You have been asked, whether the person who examined you in England had a paper in his band, /and whether he read it: did that person read it aloud to ypu, or did he read-it to himself? — Jie read it by himself. ' - - You have said, that you do not know how long you have been in England J have you been in England, raore than once? — Yes. 'Do you remember how long ' it is since the first tinie you carae here ! — I do not reraember the day. Where did 'you come to when you first came tb England ?— To an inn. Do you know the name of the tovvn ? — I do not know. Did afty thing happen there?— Mr. Denman objected lo the question, rather to save the tiine of the House, than with apy other view. The witness, having stated that he had been tvvice In England, was now asked what he did at the former time. The cross-exa mination ofhis learned friend (Mr. Wilde) had led to nothing connected with the former residence of the vii tness in England ; and he would put it to the Hpuse whether such a mode of. re-examination was either decent or proper. The Attornef-General said, that whether; his mode of examination was, or was not, " decent or proper," would be determined ,by their Lordships. The witness had been questioned, upon the crossie.xamina'tion, as to the length of Jime .he had been in England. Those questions would not have been asked but With a view to some future observation upon the evidence; andhesub-? milted .that he h'dd a right to question the witness as to the period of time, and as to the rnode in which he had lived. If the cross-examination had been " decent and proper,"- the re-examinalion was equally so. Mr. Denman thought that tlie best answer lo tho leijmcd Attorney-General's argument would be a recapitulation of his words. He (iilr. Dei)man) had no ubjection to the witness being asked how long he had been in England ; but the learijed, Attorney-General was attempting, to set up a precedent for iutro-. dqcing 'matter most irrelevant ; and, with a view lo the interest of his own client, stating an inquiry not grounded upon the cross-examination. It was not decent, he jnairitaincd, in the Attorney-General lo lake such a course} but, whether it was decent or not, it was irregular. It was attempting, in fact, to give the go-hy to the ctoss-examiHalion. He should not pprjist in his objection, unless supported by the House; but he was certain tljat tlieir Lordshipii would npt permit the Attorney-General by irrelevant questions to diverit their attention from the main object of the inquiry. The Lord Chancellor said that the Atiorney-Gencraj was at liberty to ask any questions which arosp out of the cross-examination of the witness. Examination resumed. Did any thing ndcur when you were first in England, which would enable ' you to remember at what time you first came here? Is there any circumstance which could guidp your ii^emory i^Thp first time I came to England I landed at Dover. ~ Hbw long did you then remain (n England ?— A day and a night. ., • Where did you then go to ? ^ir. Denman, — How can where he went to on the first opcasje/l have 91'Jf thing to do with the jecppd } TRIAL OF THE QUEENi. 237 The Lord Chancellor did not see the utility of the examination. If appeared to hira difficult to apply what happened at Dover to the present' case. The Attorney-GeHcral had heard questions put to the witness, upon the cross-examination, as to the time he had been in England, and the manner in which be had been living. The intent of those questions was obvious ; and he was now trying to satisfy the House of the reasons which had led to that mode of living. Mr. Denman apprehended, then, that the statement of ihe learned Attor ney-General stated hira out of court; because any observations as to the wit nesses living together would equally arise, whatever raight be the cause of their so living. The House, bethought, would not enter into a trial pf the new issue — what particular raotives, after the wiiness had first come to England, had led to his going back . lie opposed the questions, in order to exclude evidence which, though irrelevant and unimportant, was meant to prejudice the case of his client. The Attorney-General wished to remove prejudice, not to create it. Mr. Denman contended that the Altorney-General could not be heard. The objection had been stated ; the Altorney-General had argued : and he (Mr. Denman) had replied. The matler now was in the judgement of the House. After a short consultation with the judges, the Lord Chancellor stated their opinion lo be, that the question could nol be put. But, previous to the ex aminalion going on, the short-hand writer was desired to read the three prece ding questions and answers, which was done accordingly. Mr. Brougham said, he understood their Lordships to have put an hypo thetical case, on which their decision was founded. He hoped the same lati tude would be allowed to her Majesty's counsel, on any future occasion. The short-hand writer was then, called upon by the Lord Chancellor to read that part of the cross-examination alluded lo by the Attorney-General. This having been done. The Lord Chancellor said, he did not see that in that evidence there was con veyed any imputation that the witnesses lived together. By the Marquis of La«.srfoa're.; — I wish the witness to state, if he is able, whether, on the occasions on which he has described a^person of the nara^ of Mahoraet to have exhibited before the Princess, he can declare, from his own- knowledge, that Mahoraet had been sent for by her Royal Highness ? — Her Royal Highness never sent for Mahomet, What, did Mahomet represent with part of his dress ? of a raan. You have described this Mahomet making up a roll , what did it represent? — It seemed as if il were of a man. Did her Royal Highness, while this dance was performing, remain ? was it all performed in ber presence ? — She did remain. How long did her Royal Highness remain ? — I cannot precisely say. Does the witness know the cause of Bergami's leaving her Roy^l Highness's service .? — No. 'Ihe F.ar\ of Liverpool expressed a wish that the answer of the-witness to the question, whether her Royal Highness had sent for Mahomet, should be read. The shorlvhand writer read the question and answer,, viz. " On the occasion on which you saw Mahomet use certain gesticulations in her Royal Highness's presence, can you state, on your own knowledge, that he was sent for by her P.oyal Highness ?—-IJer Royal Highness did notseqd for him — not altogether." 238 TRIAL OF THE QUEEW! By the Earl of Liverpool.— Does the witness mean to say, that her RoyaJ Highness did not send him for' Mahomet, or that she did not send for Maho inet at ,all ? — I never saw any person sent to fetch him. I don't know that any person was sent; but I know she came when he was dancing. ' How long did she remain present when Mahomet was inaking those gesticu-. lations? — When she came I saw her, but how long she stayed I paid no atten tion to, for I attended to my duty. Did her Royal Highness appear to receive much gratification on these oc casions? — Very great. Mr. Denman observed, that, in a court of law, evidence relative to the feel ings of an individual would not be considered admissible. By a Peei: — Did any thing particularliappen to you at Dover, when you arrived ? — Was there an offer of money made to you at that place ? Mr. Denman objected to this question, and he humbly prayed their Lord ships to consider whether his objection were well or ill-founded before the question was put. He submitted, that unless the circumstance alluded to could be stated to have happened in the presence of her Royal Highness, or; could, in some way or other, be connected with her agents, their Lordships could not, according lo the received rules of evidence which gbverned the inferior courts, allow the question to be put. Their Lordships, he conceived, iBUst at once see the propriety and necessity of objecting to a question of this nature. Mr. Brougham saixl, their Lordships had always been ready to give a certaii) liberty to counsel in objecting to questions that appeared irregular ; and, if they looked lo forraer trials in that Hoiise — he spoke particularly of regular trials -—they would find that ihe party prosecuted had been allowed so to object, by the indulgence of their Lordships. Tbe Lord Chancellor said, that if any thing like a leading question were asked, it could only be justified by what had occurred before. He appre» liended that, until it could be'shown (if, indeed, it could be sh?jwii) that her lloyal Highness was connected in domc way or other with what happened at Dover, the circurastances that took place there could not be received in evidence. The EarJ of Lauderdale conceived, that the decision on the propriety of the question must depend on what followed it. For instance, something was said about the receipt of raoney ; and then the witness was asked, whether money had been offered at Dover ? This laid the foundalron for other inquiries, which cotild not be made^-unless originally some ground was formed for pro ceeding. The Lord Chancellor observed, that the noble Lord who put the question migbt give reasons for asking it, and it would then be for the House to decide whether it should be put or not. But, at present, it was so general, tbat the House knew not how lo apply it. A Peer stated, that the translation of the question was not accurate : it ad mitted of a different meaning. Earl Grey. — No foundation having been given for this question, I conceive the learned Lord on the woolsack bas very properly staled that it cannot be put. This point has already been decided on the re-examination: and though I ara ready to cpnfend for the fullest latitude of examination by your Lord- sEiips, I think you will find it a matter of sound discretion to pause before you allow a question to be put, which the House, on the decision of the judges, has already decided cannot be regularly put. TRIAL OF THE QUEENi 33^ The Peer who proposed the question said, that in consequence of what had fallen frora the bar, he withdrew it. By Viscount Falmouth. — The witness says that the Princess gave balls : I wisk lo know who asked the company; whether it was the Princess, or whether the servants were allowed to ask their friends? — I don't know who invited tl)« company. They came; but I don't know who invited them, because 1 at tended to my own business. Then I understand they were nol servants' balls ?--They were not. By Lord De Dunstanville. — Did you consider the motions of Mahomet as the mere customary motions of thai person in his dance i — He always made those gestures as a customary act in his dance. By the Earl of Darnley. — During those exhibitions of Mahomet, were ther* many persons present ? were women present as well as men ? — There were no women. The examination of this witness closed here. Examination o/'Maddle. Dumont (femme de chambre,)*. The next witness called was Louisa Dumont, of whom the public have heard so much. She wore a handsome black satin hat, ornamented with feathers ; a muslin ruff, highly plaited; a white silk handkerchief over ber neck and bo som, and il black satin gown, vandyked at the top, and profusely decorated with flounces at bottom. She is the smartest-dressed of femmes de chambre, but neither tbe youngest nor the prettiest. She seems to be about 36 years of age : in complexion she is a brunette ; her cheeks sunk and shrivelled, and her eye more remarkable for an expression of cunning than of intellect. She advanced to the bar with a degree of confidence which even the penetrating glance of Mr. Broughara, who eyed her most perseveringly " from top to toe," did notat all affect. The wiiness having been sworn, the Solicitor-General was priiceeding to examine her, through the medium of the Marchese Spinetto, in French, when, Mr. Williams interrupted him, for the purpose of asking the witness, did she understand English ? To which interrogatory she answered " a little." How long have you been in England ?— About tivo months (as we un derstood.) Do you understand the English language at all ? The Solicitor-General. — She did not say so. Have you no knowledge of the English language ? —Very little. Have you not been in the habit of speaking English ? — I cannot speak it, and f understand it very little. The examination then proceeded as follows ; — Of what country are you a native? — I ara a native of the Pays-de-Vaud, in Switzerland. Are you of the Protestant or Roman-Catholic religion ?-r— I ara a Pro testant. Did you enter the service of the Princess of Wales? — I have been in her service. • This, it will be remembered, is the sagacious ladj alluded to by the Attorney-General, (p. 42,) who remarked the agitation of the Princess on her return frora the Opera, at Naples, on the night when, in tbe opinion of the learned gentleman, " the adulterons intercourse" was consummated. She is another of her Majesty's cast-off servants, and her merits art thought lo be on a par with those of ihc renowned Signot 'Non-m't-Ricordo, i , S40 TRIAL OF THE QUEfiW* ' Where did' yCu uesideat the time you entered her service ?-r-At Bologtta* Where did you first go for the purpose of seeing the Princess ?-^To Geneva. Did you make any engagement with the Princess of Wales at Geneva, or aftJer you saw her at'Geneva ?— I engaged myself to go into her service for five years. r Did you enter into her service, in fact, at Geneva ? or did you enter into it at any other place ?— I entered her Royal Highness's service at Lausanne. Did you proceed with her Royal Highness frora Lausanne to Milan ??- Idid. You have stated that you entered into ber Royal Highness's service.for' five jyear's ; in what capacity did you enter into it ? — As first femme de chambre. Tell us, when you arrived at Milan, of whora the suite- of her Royal High ness consisted ? — Must I state the gentleraen and ladies, or all together ? First, the gentleraen ?— There were four gentlemen, Mr. Hesse, Mr. Hol land — (the two other names we did not hear). What ladies composed her suite at that time ? — There vvere three ladies. At what place didyou lodge on your arrival at Milan ? — At an inn. ' What was the name of that inn ? — The Royal Hotel. ^ Do you remember a persoh of the name of Bergami being engaged at that place in the service of her Royal Highness ?^l remeraber him well. In what situation or capacity was he engaged to serve her Royal Highness? — -As courier. As nearly as ynu can recollect, how raany days was that before her Royal Highness quitted' Milan? — About fifteen days. Now, during the fourteen or fifteen days, of which you have spoken, did Bergami wait at table on her Royal Highness? — Yes, he waited atdiiiner. On leaving Milan, did her Royal Highness pass through Rome, on her way to Naples ? — Yes, she passed through Rome. Do you recollect a young person of the name of William Austin, being with . ber Royal Highness ? — Yes. Before the Princess.arrived'at Milan, where was William Austin in thebabit of Bleeping generally ?— Generally he slept in the room of her Royal Highness. Do you recollect where her Royal Highness slept, at what house, on the night before she entered the city of Naples ?-^In a country-house. Do you recollect whether her Royal Highness slept in the room of Williara Austin in -that country-house ? — I cannot pcsitively say about that night; but, generally, he was in the habit of sleeping in the room wilh ber Royal Highness. Had her Royal Highness about ihattimeanycomraunication with yon about the place of sleeping of William Austin ? — Her Highness told me, during that - evening, that William Austin had become too big a boy to'sleep in her room, and he mUst have une chambre purticuliere. Up- to that period, did Bergami breakfast and dine with the other servants ? — He dined always at our table. , [The interpreter observed, — at the table of the servants, where she herself dined.] , . . Do you know what room Was allotted for Bergami on the first .night of^his arrival at Naples ? — I don't remember where it was. Do you rememher the room in which he slept on the second night after your -arrival .at l*Iaples ? — Yes, I do. Was that room near the room occupied by her Royal Highness ? — Yes, quite near. TRIAL OF THE QOEEN. S41 Was there any internal communication between the two rooms ? — There was one. What was there between the two chambers ? — A small cabinet, with a fire place and a passage. The question was repeated, and witness answered, a small cabinet and a Could you go from the roora of Bergami fo that of the Princess by proceed ing along that passage and through the cabinet ? — Yes. *Was there any dour communicating from that passage to any other apart ment ?— There was a door led out of that passage. When that door was (:losed, and the door of her Royal Hfghness's room w.is closed, and the door of Bergami's room was closed, could any person have ac cess to those rooms and that passage; I mean by tbe door of Bergami, the outer door of his room ? — No ; there were only those doors. Did her Royal Highness, un the evening after her arrival at Naples, go to the opera ? — Her Royal Highness told me, while I was dressing her, that she was going to the opera. , Did she return early or late from the opera that evening ? — It seems to me that she retui ned early in the evening. Upon her return did she go into her bed-room. Mr. Denman objected to this as a leading question. Upon her return where did she go to?— She returned to her bed-room. Were you in tbe bed-room yourself? — I was not there, but she rang for me. On your arrival at the bed-room of the Princess, 'what did her Royal High ness do? — Her Royal Highness crossed the passage and entered the cabinet. Do you know where Bergami was at that time ? — I don't know. After her Royal Highness had gone into the cabinet, what did she then do ? — I do not kuow what she did; but she returned immediately to the bed-room where I was. Did she say any thing to you ? Did she give you any orders ? — Her Royal Highness told me to forbid William Austin entering into her room, because she wished to be quiet. Where did Williara Austin sleep that night?— In -a small cabinet, where he remained all the time. Was that cabinet adjoining tbe bed-room of the Princess ? — It was near it ; there was a door of communication. Doyou know whether that door was open or shut that night ? — I saw it shut. When that door was shut, was there any communication between tbat cabi-i net and the passage of which you have spoken ? — There was not. What beds were there, at night, in the bed-room of the Princess ? How many ? — There were two ; a large one and a small one. What was the small bed ? — It was a travelling-bed for her Royal Highness. Did her Royal Highness usually sleep in that bed? — Yes ; she slept in it. What preparations were made, that night, for her Royal Highness, relative to that bed? — I saw, in the evening, that it was made. Did you take any notice of the olher bed? were there sheets on it, or not ? — I saw, afterwards, that there were no sheets. How long did you remain .with her Royal Highness that night before she left the bed-room ? — Some minutes ; a very little lime. Did you make any observation on the conduct of her Royal Highness that night in the bed-room ? — I thought she was extremely agitated. What was your reason for remaining there only a few minutes?— 35 242 TRIAL 01' THE QVEEN. Mr. Williams submitted' that the reason of the witness for not remaining with her Royal Highness could not be received as evidence. The Solicitor-General co.ntended thfit the question was perfectly admissible, because the answer might be, that the witness was desired lo go out. \ The witnessj in answer to the question said, " I left the room after regain ing a few minutes, because her Royal Highness sent me away immediately." Had that been her usual practice? — It was not, t)o you know where Bergami slept that night ? — I believe Mr. Brougham, — We have nothing to do with belief What time the next morning did you see her Royal Highness ? — t don't re member precisely. I don't ask you preci-sely, but as nearly as you can recollect ?— Near, or about, 11 o'clock. ( Was that later or about her usual time? — It was nearly her usual time. When did. you see Bergami that morning ? — I had not seen him during the whole of the morning. When was it that you first saw him that day, and where ? — At dinner. Did you take notice of the travelling-bed that morning ? — Yes, I did. What observation did you make ?— I observed that nobody had slept in it. Did you observe what appearance the larger bed bad? — I did. What observation did you make on the larger bed ? — I observed that it had been occupied. Slate more al length, or raore particularly, what was its condition? — I can- hot do that. Was it much deranged? — Not much. Do you know where Bergami passed each night during your stay at Naples? —Yes. Was his room near, or at a distance from, ihat 6f the Princess ? — It was hear it. Was there another room near the Princess's, in which some other person slept? — Yes; Mr. leronimus. Who slept on the same side of the passage? — There was only leronimus on the same side. Where did leronimus sleep ? — In a roora which was before entering the rooni of her Royal Highness. Was the roora off the corridor ? — The two doors were in the same passage. Did the vvitness, while in Naples, see Bergami in the sarae roora with her Royal Highness ? — I have seen hira in the bed-roora very often. Who was it that assisted her Royal Highness in raaking her toilette? — Idid. Did the witness ever see any other person present while her Royal Highness Was raaking her toilette? — Yes; Mr. William Austin and Mr. Bergami. Was Bergami courier at that lime ? — He was. About what age was Austin then ?-^About 13 years. The witness has said that Bergarai was present wilh her Royal Highness when at her toilette: how often— once, twice, or how ? — Often, several tiraes. In what state of dress was her Royal Highness then ; little dressed, or much dressed, or how ?-^Sometimes she was dressed, and sometimes not. Can the witness tell whether Bergami came in for a moment and went out agaiuj or continued in ? — He entered ; he went in and but. Does the wiiness remember ever seeing Bergami in the passage of which fehe has made mention, at night? — I do reraember. Where was her Royal Highness then? — Id her bcd-roomi TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 3,43 Washer Royal Highness dressed or undressed, or how? --Her Royal High ness was undressed. Where was witness standing ? — I was near her Royal Ilighpess's bed. Where was Bergami when the witness saw liiin ? — I have seen Bergarai come out of his room, and come through the passage. In what direction was Bergami moving ; towards the Princess's room, or how ? — He was going towards the room of her Royal Highness. What was the state of Bergami's dross when the witness saw him? — He was not dressed. When the witness said he was not dressed, what did she mean? what had he on ? — He was not dressed at all. (.1 laugh,) What was there oif his feet ?-^Slippers. Did the witness observe whether he had any stockings on ? — 1 saw no stock ings. Had he any thing on but his shirt ? — No more. The witness has said that the Princess w, When you arrived, to whf.t part of the theatre did yon go ? — We went high, to the top— to the saloon, where they walked. How was her Royal Highness dressed ?— In a red cloak. How was Bergarai dressed? — In a red domino. What had he on his head ? — A large hat was on his head. Wl^en you got into the saloon what did you do ? — Nothing afterwards. Where didyou go? — We descended into the pit. When you got into the pit what happened ? — Many ugly masks surrounded us, and began to make a great noise and hissed. Will the witness describe what took place ?— The masks surrounded us, and made a great noise; we had great difficulty, to withdraw; we got into a small' room. 246 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Was there any thing j»«r<»c«for inthe Princess's dress f'-^Her dress was vehy uolt; monstrous.'* Lord Hampden repeated — ' ' very ugly — monstrously ugly dress." Mr. Brougham. — I beg to call tbe attention of your Lordships, with great humility, to what appears to me exceedingly irregular. One of the judges in this case enlarges the expression given in evidence by a construction which the words do not bear. "The witness says, " very ugly, monstrous," and a noble Lord thinks himself called on-^(Loud cries of " Order, order.") Lord Hampden rose, and said something which we could not hear,-^ (" Order, order.") The Lord Chancellor said, that if any noble Lord thought the answer was not correct, he bad a right to have it corrected, hordHampden made some observation which we could not hear. The answer of the witness was repeated in the terms originally given. How long were you in Naples after that?-^Three or four months. Did Bergami serve during tbat period, or not ? — -He did, Didyou raake any observation except what you have said on the mutual conduct of the Princess and Bergarai, while at Naples f — Mr. Williams objected to tbe forra of the question. It should be, whether the witness knew any thing further. , The Solicitor-General defended the question. Mr. Williams said, it assuraed that there had been something to be known respecting the conduct of the one towards the other. The Solicitor-General said, if any thing should be asked or stated of what took place in the absence of her Royal Highness, it would not be evidence, but the question was shaped to avoid that. [" Go on~-go o»."] Did you make any observation except what you have said on the mutual conduct of the Princess and Bergami while at Naples ? — Only that they were very familiar one towards the other. How early did that familiarity commence? At what period did it com» pienqe ? — From the moment we reached Naples, Were the servants in general in the habit of going into ber Royal Highness's .room without knocking ? — No, unless sent for by her Royal Highness. Did you observe how Bergarai entered? — He never knocked. Did any part of her English suite leave her Royal Highness while at Na ples ? — Not during our stay there ; but when we went away some remained. To what place did her Royal Higbness go from Naples? — ^To Rome, Who of the four gentlemen you have mentioned accompanied her, or did any ?— Dr. Holland. Did the lady you have mentioned accorapany hee? — She remained at Naples. * Here is a distinct refutation of another of those monstrous falsehoods which the Attorney- General bad crammed into his opening speech. Speaking of the Princess's visit to tbe theatre at St. Carlos, he says the dress, chosen by ber Mi^esty for herself and companions were of " a descriptimi so indecent, as to attract the attention of the whole com pany, and to call forth marks of general disapprobation," p. 45. Now there is not a word in the evidence about the Queen's dress being " indecent." The witness says ber Majesty's dress was very ugly — monstrous," but not a word about its " indecency." How came then the Attorney-General to cram such an ugly and odious lie into his speech ? Where is the witness to support this foul calumny on her Majesty ? Then, again, as to the hissing, such a circumstance at Naples seems very iinpiobable. Things were tben too much & la militaire to allow any^ such licence in a Neapolitan audience, especially towards a person who had been treated with sill the disUnction due to ber rank as Princess of Wales by thp Sov,eteigi) of >)» country. TRIAL OF THE QttEEN. 427 What Lady ?~Lady Eli«abeih Forbes. Was there any English lady with her Royal Highness at Rome ?— -Yes, Lady Charlotte Lindsay. When did she join ? — As far as I reraember, towards tho latter end of the tirae at Naples. From Rome her Royal Highness went to Civita Vecchia and Genoa ? — Yes. Do you remember tbe house her Royal Highness occupied when at Genoa? —Ido. Was there any other English gentleman but Dr. Holland in her Royal Highness's suite at Genoa? — Yes, Mr. Hannam joined at Genoa. Any other ? — No, I don't know any other. When did Lady Charlotte Lindsay leave? — Sho left at Leghorn. Did you observe the situalion of the beds of her Royal Highness and of Bergarai at Genoa ? — I did. Were they near or distant? — They were very near. Do you recollect what separated thera ? — Yes, a single room. Was there any thing in that room ? — Yes, there was luggage of her Royal Highness's, and she dressed there. Was there any communication between that room and the room of Ber gami ? — There was. Did they continue to sleep there while at Genoa ? — They did. Did you observe how her Royal Highness breakfasted ? — Yes. Where ? — In a small cabin at the end of the saloon. ^ Was Bergarai with her ? — Yes. Was he courier then ? — He was. Who waited at breakfast ? — (Louis) Bergami and Theodore Majochi. , Was Louis Bergami Bartolomeo Bergami's brother ? — Yes. Do you reraember the garden at Genoa ? — I do. Did you see her Roya) Highness walking in the shrubbery there? — I did, very often. Did you see Bergami too ? — I did. When her Royal Highness walked, was she alone, or how ? — Bergami was always with her. Were they separate, or how ? — I did not observe. Had yoiu any thing lo do with the beds at Genoa ? — I had, till the time my sister arrived. Did her Royal Highness and Bergami walk alone in the shrubbery, or did any walk with them ? — Yes ; sometimes me, sometiraes Majochi, sometimes Austin, and sometimes altogether. Was the door between your room and that of the Princess open or shut at flight ?-;-Shut. Was it locked or only shut ? — ^The Princess turned the key inside. Was the bed-room of Bergami situated on the other side ? — It was. In the morning who let you inlo the Princess's room ?— The Princess ber self called me from her room. Did you observe the bed of the Princess, whether it had been slept in or not? — More often (plus souvent) it had not been slept in. Mr. Brougham complained that the, wiiness spoke in so low a tone, and so rapidly, that it was impossible either to hear or to understand her. What do you mean by plus sowt>«i< ?— Ordinarily, generally, in common. You said that after you were in your bed-room the Priniess locked the door 248 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, on the other side. I want to know whether after this you heard any noise as of a door opening. Counsel were here ordered to withdraw, and. The Duke of Hamilton said that he interposed with greal; reluctance, be cause he thought the interpreter not quite competent to the task he had un- > dertaken : he should be wanting to himself and to his country in a case of so much importance, on which the eyes of all Europe vvere fixed, if he did not take the objection, and say that the mode of interpretation as it had been conducted since this witness was called bad not been satisfactory to him. The Earl of Liverpool said, that the gentleman officia'ting as interpreter (the Marquis de Spinetto) had shown himself an excellent Italian, but he did not seem quite so perfect in the French language. He was not aware that any material mistake had been made by him, but the interpreter had certainly ap peared embarrasised sometimes, and it tuight be better if a gentleman could be procured more convjersant with French. The Solicitor General said, that from the inquiries they had made they had reason to think the Marquis de Spinetto perfectly competent to discharge the duty he had undertaken. He and the interpreter on the other side had only di^red regarding a single expression. Mr. --Brougham attempted to speak, but was interrupted by cries of" order." The Eari of Essex said a few inaudible words. The Earl of Harrowby adthitted that the interpreier did not seem sufficient ly acqu»nted with the idiom of the French language, although he was not aware that he had made any mistake : of his general intelligence and compe tence, as far as his own language was concerned, there could be no doubt. (Hear.) It was necessary, however, that a person should be provided well ~ versed in the respective idioms of the two languages, French and English. The Earl of Essex, as we understood. Instanced a misapprehension into which the interpreter had fallen. Earl Grey agreed that no unfaithful translation had been given by the inter preter, and that his task was an arduous one, recollecting the liability of confusing three languages, two of them not his own. He had hitherto performed his duty in his native tongue in the most satisfactory manner. [Cheers.] Lord Erskine made a remark not heard below the bar. The Duke of Hamilton meant to cast no imputation on the gentleman who had so well performed his duty bitbertb. [" Go on."] Mr Brougham endeavoured to obtain a hearing. [" No no — go on,'; " order."] The Solicitor General had been heard, and in mere fairness he might be allowed to say, tbat he and his friends had no complaint to make against any part of the interpretation hitherto made as far as they were judges of the subject. The French of the Marquis de Spinetto was certainly not so good as his Italian, but at least for this day he had no objection to its being continued, and to-morrow another interpreter could be procured. (Hear.) The Earl of Liverpool had made inquiry, and found that to-morrow morn ing another interpreter would be in attendance : in the mean time the House might proceed as it had begun. (" Go on, go on.") The Earl of Lauderdale suggested tbat both parties should be provided with a French interpreter. The Lord Chancellor so informed the counsel. Mr, Brougham added that an Englishman who thoroughly understood French TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 24.9 would make the best interpreter. The examination of the wiiness was then continued. The question put at the time when the Duke of Hamilton interposed was read to the witness, who said " I have sometimes heard a noise of a door opening toward the side of the Princess, but I did not know if it were the door of her roora." Was there any other door that you recollect in that direction excepting the door of the Princess's room, or of Bergami's ? — There was a third door, lead ing into the dressing room of her Royal Highness. Was that the room you described as being the room between the bed-room of the Princess and that of Bergami ? — The room was between the two rooms ; there was a third door, which was the room where her Royal High ness dressed herself. After you heard the door ppen, did- you hear any noise in the Princess's room during the remainder of the night, or was all quiet ? -^All was quiet. Was it your business at that period to make the bed of the Princess ? — Yes. Will you describe what you were in the habit of doing to the bed .' — I laid the cushions, and I spread the clothes. Did you make the bed entirely ? —Very rarely. Why did you not ? — Because there was no need of it ; it was made. Was it in that state in the morning always when you went for the first time into her Royal Highness's bed-room ? — Generally, almost every morn ing. How long did the Princess remain at Genoa ? — Nearly two months. _ During that time did any of the relations of Bergami enter iiMo her ser vice ? — Luigi Bergami. Do you remember Faustina — did she not enter the Princess's^ervice? — Yes: she was travelling, and arrived at Genoa, but I ~do not know whether she came into tbe service of her Royal Highness. Did she live in her house ?— She came expressly from Milan to her Royal Highness. Did she remain durin? the rest of the time the Princess continued at Genoa ? -Yes. ^ Do you know Bergami's mother ? — Yes. How did they call her ? — They called her Nonna. The interpreter said that this was an Italian word signifying grandmother. Did she continue to reside while the Princess was at Genoa? — Yes. Was there a little child, the daughter of Bergami ? — Yes. What was ber name, and how old was she f-^She was called Victorine, and she was about two or three years old. While at Genoa did the Princess go to look at any house in the neighbour hood?— Yes. Did she say for what purpose she went to look at that house?— Because she wished to live there, and desired to take it. Did she say any thing about tbe English ? —She said it was distant frora the town, where there were many English. Do you know why she said that it was distant from the town, where there were many English. Did she give you any. further explanation ?-;- Mr. Williams objected to the question. Do you know why she said it, from any thing that fell from her Royal Highness ? Did her Royal Highness say any thing more on that subject ? — She only said that she wished to take it becaiise it was further from Genoa, and ~the English. 250 TRIAL OF "THE QUEEN. Where did the Princess go to from Genoa ? — To Milan. ¦ 'i Did she go to a bouse in the place Borromeo ? — Not immediately, ' How soon after her arrival at Milan ? — Two or three day . Had any English lady joined the Princess at Genoa ? — Lady ' Charlotte Campbell. With her daughters ? — Her daughters came also, but they were in a pivate house, Did Lady Charlotte Campbell go to Milan with her Royal I^ighness ? Did she accompany her on the road to Milan ? — No, not on the same day. She came after. , Who went in the carriage from Genoa to Milan with her Royal Highness ? — William Austin and myself. Did ydu see Bergami on the road ? — Yes. Did you see her Royal .Highness say any thing, do any thing, or give any thing to Bergami onlihe road ? She often gave something to Bergami to eat, and asked him if he wanted any thing. Was that when they stopped at tbe inns, or while they were on the road ? —On the road, because we ate in the carriage. In what character was Bergami serving on that journey? — He was on horseback, dressed as a courier. Do you recollect the situation of the bedrooms of the Princess and Bergami in the Place Borromeo, at Milan ? — Yes. Were they near or distant ft'om each other? — Near. How long did Lady C. Campbell continue at Milan with her Royal High ness ?— I believe nearly a month. When Lady C. Campbell went awaj', was there any English lady left in the -.suite of the Princess ? — No. Did any other lady come into the situation of lady of honour ? — Yes. How soon after Lady C. Campbell had gone away ? — ^Two days after. Who was that person? — The Countess Oldi. Before she came into the service of _the Princess, had you any conversation with her Royal Highness on the subject, or did she say any thing to you on the subject ? — She told me the Countess Oldi wished to come into her service as dame d'honneur, and her Royal Highness wished to take Countess Oldi into her service. At the tirae you had this, conversation did the Princess tell you who. Count ess Oldi was >— She only told rae that she was a noble lady. Did you know what relation the Countess of Oldi was to Besgami? — She was the sister of Bergami. How soon did you know that ? — Two months after her arrival. Did her Royal Highness give any other description of the CountesS OJdik but saying that she was une dame noble .?— She only said, that people said slie was pretty, handsome. After this conversation did you see Madame Oldi when she came into the service ?— I did. Do you know whether she could speak French ? — Nol at all. Could her Royal Highness speak Italian ? — Very little, Did you make any observation on the language of CbUntess Oldi so as to be able to know whether she was 'a woman of distinction?-^ I always observ ed that she spoke very vulgar Italian. Did you ever see any of ber writing ? .Mr. W-.Hlig.ms objected : the question could not be -put, if any inference were to be drawn as to the style of Countess Oldi. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN- 26'1 Mr. Brougham. — This is the first lime a womnii has been asked to criWcis;; the style of another woraan in a language which is not her own. -, T\\e Solicitor General. — Perhaps the answer may be that she coiild inot .write. (" Go on, go on.") The Earl of Lauderdale made a remark which was not audible by us. The Lord Chancellor. —You may ask whether she could read and writ* (" Go on.") Did you make any observation on the manners of the Counless Oldi? in your judgement were they the manners of a lady of distinction or noti? (Cries of " No, no," interrupted the reply of the wiiness.) Mr. Brougham. — We make no objection lo the question : we beg that the opinion of the Szuiss Cluimbermaid on the manners of ladies of distinction may be put down and registered. "The Lord Chancellor. — Then, if there be no objection, why do you not go on ? Did you, observe if the manners of the Countess Oldi were those of a gentlewoman, or not ? The interpreter said that h% could not put this question, as there was no word for gentlewoman in the French language. (This observation occasioned much laughter. ) Did you make any observations on the manners of the Countess Oldi ? — No. Do you remember a gentleman of the name. of William Burrell being with her Royal Highness at Milan ? — I do. How long did be remain with her .? — Not very long ; I do not remember precisely. Can you tell about the time ? — A month, more or less. When Mr. W. Burrell went away, did any other English gentleimaii come into the service of her Royal Highness ? — No. When did Dr. Holland quit : at what place ? — At Venice. W^as that during the time her Royal Highness was residing at Milan?— It . was. Did any other English gentleman except Mr. Howland remain in the ser vice of the Princess ? — No. Where did the Princess go to frcrni the Place Borromeo ? — To Como. To the Villa Villani ?— She did. Was there any gallery belonging to the house Borromeo ^ — Yes, round the hou.se, inside. Do you remember being in tbat gallery at any time in the morning, and seeing Bergami ?— I have not seen Bergami in the gallery. Where did you see him ? — At his window. What was he doing ? — He was opening his window to call his servant. What robe or gown had he on at the time ? — He had on a blue silk gG^vn which the Princess generally put on in the morning. Had you seen the Princess wear it before that time ? — Often. How near to that time : some days before, or how ? —Some days before. After Mr. W. Burrell left the house of the Princess, did any alteration take place — did you observe aiiy change in the house ? — There was more free dom, ¦ more liberty in the house. Tell us in particular what you aHude to — what you observed ? — They play ed in the saloon, her Rpyal Highness and the servants every evening. Can you tell us what game and how ? — Different games-— different |)lalys— different frolics. 252 TRIAL OK THE QUEEN. Mentioti any. — Blind-man's-buff. ' Did the Princess play ? — She played sometimes. To the best of your recollection did this take place before Mr. Burrell left ? •—¦After the departure of Mr. Burrell. Did you mak6 any observation on the conduct' ot her Royal Highness with respect to Bergami, during her residence at Milan and at the Villa Villa ni ? — Only that they lived very free towards each other. When did the Princess go to the Villa d'Esle ? — At the beginning of September. Five o'clock being arrived, the Earl of Liverpool moved the adjournment, and their Lordships separated. This day the witnesses were sworn on a New Testament, bound in black morocco, with a white cross on the part which they kissed. But, as the Swiss chambermaid professed to be a Protestant, the while cross could have no terrors to her. THIRTEENTH DAY. Thursday, August 31. The Lord Chancellor took his seat at a quarter before 10; and, after the usual forms were gone through, the counsel were called to the bar. Two new interpreters were sworn: George Pinario for the King, and — — Gastano for the Queen. ¦The examination of Madame Dumont continued by the Solicilor General. While the Princess was residing at Villa Villani do you recollect her making any tour? — Yes, to Mount St. Gothard. Doyou remember at what place she stopped in making that tour ? — At the Borromeo Isles. Did the Princess sleep at the Borromeo Isles ?— Yes. Do you recollect where she dined on the day she slept at tbe Borromeo Isles ? — I do not recollect, Do you recollect whether the Princess dined at any inn on the road .' — Th** witness thinks they stopt at an inn at Barese, but she is not certain. A Peer objected to this mode of interpreting tbe evidence, and the Lord Chancellor desired the interpreter always to translate what the witness said jn the first person. Had you ever been at Borromeo before ? — Yes. Did the Princess sleep there on the first occasion ? — Yes. Do you recollect the apartment her Royal Highness slept in on that firs.t visit ? —Yes. Was this on the journey from those isles to Milan, on her Royal Highness's first arrival ? — It was. What sort of apartment was on this first occasion prepared for her Royal Highness,?— The most elegant in Borromeo. Was it at an inn, or at the palace of Borromeo ? — It was inthe Borromeo palace. When you went a second time, what apartment was prepared for her Royal Highness i — ^I do not recollect what apartment was prepared. Do you recollect in what apartment she slept on this occasion? — Yes. Did you on this second visit see the apartment in which her Royal Highness slept the first time ?— Yes. TKIAL OF THE QUEEN. 253 In what apartment did she shjep the second time ?-i-ln a room remote from the forraer apartment. Do you know where Bergami slept on this second occasion? — In a rbom near the apartment of hoi Roydl Highness. Was her Royal Hiiihness's upai'itmeiit prepared before or after her arrival ? As far as I can recollect, after. What kind of aparlinent was it ?-— It was a large room. \Vas there an^ communication between il and the apartmeiil where Bergami ilept? — I don't recollect. Doyou remember going to Bellenzono ? — Yes. Did you dine ai an inn upon that occasion?— Yes. Where did Bergami dine! — I saw hira sitting at l\rs table with her Royal Highness. At the tirae you saw him sitting at the table with iier Royal Highness, how was he dressed ? — He was in his courier dress : he was dressed like a courier. Did he on that journey act as a courier ? — lie did not ride on horseback. I do not recollect whether he acted as a courier, but he was dressed like a courier. How did he travel ? — He rode in a carriage. In what carriage did he ride ? — In an open carriage. Was it that in vvhich her Royal Highness rode? — Il was another carriage. Did her Royal Highness dine more than once at Bellenzono ?— ^I belieye not. Did she return to Villa Villani ? ¦ Yes. In what month did she go from the Villa Villani to the Villa d'Este? — A« far as I can recollect, at the beginning of September. Did you slop and sleep at Lugano ? — Yes, upon our retum. Do you recollect the disposition of the rooms at Villa d'Este upon your first arrival ? — Yes. Will you describe the situation of the room of her Royal Highness, and what rooms or passages you had to pass through in going to it: — One first entered into a dark ante.-room, after that into a small corridor, then there were two rooms, and after the^two rooms was the ideeping room. Was there a comraunicati6n between the two rooms that you passed through in going to the slecping--room ?— Yes. Did the second room communicate with the bed-room ? — It did, Then, in going from the ante-room you passed through two charabers to go to the Princess's bed-room ? -Yes. Describe the situation of Bergami's roorti. — The sleeping-room of Bergami comnyiiniqjited with the same ante-room. With tbe first room you have raentioned? — YesJ Besides this, was there any other comraunicatioi)i wjth Bergami's room and any other place ? — -Yes. A With what place? — With the sleeping roora of her Royal Highness. What was there between her Royal Highness's bed-roora and that of Berga mi ? — A small very narrow cabinet. Did any body sleep in that cabinet? — I never saw any body. When the door that opened on the dark ante-room was- closed, could any body go into Bergami's room e.xcept through the small cabinet ? — I never saw any one. ' ; Was there any other way into the bed-room of Berganjlj^ when the door tliat opened on the dark anterroom was closed, ej^cept through the little cabi net ? — J never saw any other v/sy, 37 254 TRiAL OF THE QUEEN. At what hour did the Princess usually go to bed al this time ?— Sometimes at eleven and sometimes at ten o'clock. Who used to go wilh the Princess to her bed-room ? — When I was with her in the sleeping-room only Bergami accompanied her to it. When you wero present, did he accompany her to the room ? — Sometimes, when I was there alone, Bergami accompanied her to it. Which way did they come ?-— Through the two rooms I have described. When Bergami had, as you say, accompaii/ied the Princess to her. bed-roora, did he remain there ; or, when he went away, which way did he go? — He did not stop long; sometimes he passed through the rooms I have already described, and sometimes went out by the door of the little cabinet. Do you mean the cabinet vou have explained as serving for a passage? — Yes. Did you remain in the chamber lo undress her Royal Highness? — Here some observations, whicii we did not hear, were raade in the house, on the manner of putting ihe question ; and the King's interpreter was asked vvhat countryman he was. He answered, a Genoese. Did you continue in the bed-room and undress her Royal Highness?— Yes, I undressed ber every night. After you had undressed the Princess, how did you relire? — Through the two rooms I have mentioned before. Did the Princess accompany you when you withdrew ? — Often. When you say she accompanied you, how far do you raean she went?— 'As far as to the last door. Was any thing done by her Royal Highness wilh that door when you re tired? — The Princess locked it with a key. Didthat ever happen when Bergami was inside?— No.* Sorae discussion arose on this question; and il was repeated thus — Did that ever happen when Bergarai was inside? — Witness — Do you mean in her Royal Highness's room, or in his-own ? Did it ever happen either when he remained in the room of her Royal Highness, or in his own ? — Not when he was in the apart'raent of her Royal Highness, but when he was in his own. Didyou attend her Royal Highness in the raorning? — Yes, Did you enter the same way by which you were let out ? — Yes, by the sarae communication. Did you ever make any observation on the door of the room that opened into the small cabinet ? was it open or shut ?— Sometiraes I found it half open. On those occasions, did you ever hear or see Bergami ? — No. Do you understand that I am now asking you relative to the first time at which the Princess was at the Villa d'Este? — Yes. At the time you went to call the Princess didyou ever see Bergami ?-t-I do not recollect. Did you ever see him in the raorning before her Royal Highness was dress ed.?— Yes. -^ ° , • Had the witness answered " yes" instead of " no" we should have had something tangi ble. But lord ! this is mere beating about the bushes ! 'What is the use of all this talk about corridors, cabinets, and staircases ? It merely sjjowa that it v/ete possibie to travel froHK Bergami's rodm to the apartment of the Princes^. But did Bergami ever perfortu that jour ney and commit adultery with her Roy^l Highness .' or did her Royal Highness ever go to his apartment fijr the same criminal purppse ? " Tliat' s the question," TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Q55 Where have you seen him ? — I have seen him by the door of his own room' calling his servant. Have you seen her Royal lligliliess at the same time ? — Yes. Where h^ive you seen her? — At the door of the last room where she called me. In what state, as to dress, was her Royal Highness vyhen you saw her? — She in general had on a silk manlle, vvhich she wore in the morning. Had she any thins else on ? — No. What (ire--s had Bergami on? — A mantle of blue silk. Had that mantle belonged helot.- to her Royal Highness? — Yes. How near vveie they to each other !— .About twenty paces. Doyou reciillect any conversation p-assing between them? — They spoke to each other. Were tbe doors open or shut ? — They were open. Are you speaking to having seen them so at one lime, or at more than one time ? — I have seen them so several times. Did you ever see them on the lake? — I have. Did you see ihem alone, or with other persons?— Alone. In what kind of a vessel ; a boat or a canoe ? — In a small canoe. During tbe period of your first residence at Villa d'Este, did you ever see the Princess and Bergami walking together ? — Yes. In what manner; were they separateor together? — They were together. In what way did they walk ? — Sometimes her Royal Highness took Ber gami's arm. Doyou remember the little Victorine during your first residence at Villa d'Este ?— Yes. v How did she address ihe Princess ? — She called her Mamma. Do you recollect whether it ever happened that she addressed the Princess in that manner before you went to the Villa d'Este ? — I do not recollect. Do you recollect where Bergami dined during the first residence at Villa d'Esle? — He generally dined at our table. Do you recollect his dining on any occasion, or at any time, vvith the Princess, during that period ? — He dined once, as far as I can recollect. Was that before the voyage lo Greece ?-=- Yes. Do you remember her Royal Highness coming at any tirae into the room in which you dined vvhile you were at dinner?— Only once. Was that during the period referred to? — Yes. Was Bergami present ? — Yes. Was Bergami's mother present ? — Yes. What did her Royal Highness do on coming in at this time? — She sat dovvn beside Bergami. Do you remember at that time to have seen Jerome, or leronimus ? — He did not then dine at our table. Did he come in vvhile you were dining ?— He came in afterwards. When he came in, did the Princess do any thing?— Her Royal Highness said, " Here is leronimus coming; I must go ;" and she got up and went away immediately. Did you accorapany the Princess on her voyage to Greece ?— "Yes. [Here Mr. Gurney, at the desire of the House, read over his notes of several of the preceding questions and answers.] Do you reraember her arrival at Palermo ? — Yes. ¦ Was it on board the Leviathan ? — Yes. 256 TRIAL OF THlE QUEENi Do you remember being on the deck of the Leviathan early one morning ? —Yes. Do you remember afterwards going below? — I did not gO below.' Do you remember seeing her Royal Highness immediately after that } — Yes, I Saw her immediately afterwards. In her cabin? — Yes. Was that below ? — The cabin vvas not below, but under the poop. Does the witness know whether the Prijicess was then up or in bed ? — I think in bed. Had Bergarai been in her bed-room ? Mr. Williams here interposed alid said, that was not the way to put the question : why nbt ask the witness whether she saw Bergami in the room ? The Solicitor-General. — " Does my learned friend mean to contend that she can speak to nothing but what she positively saw ? will he not allow her the benefit of her hearing i" ^ Mr. Williams. — " I shall object to any evidence, except it be a decfaration of the Princess, or vvhat a vvitness swears to have seen." The Solicitor-Getteral. — Did you see Bergami in his bed ? — I don't recollect. Did her Royal Highness go to court during her stay at Palermo? — Yes, ,she did. Did Bergami go with heri — Yes, I believe he did. Did Bergami go in the same carriage ? — I don't know, I don't recollect. Do you reraeraber arriving at Messina ? — Yes. Where did you reside there ?— In the neighbourhood of Messina, at a house prepared for the Princess. What bed-roora vvas next to the Princess's ? — That of the Countess Oldi. Was there a door coramunicating between them ? — Yes, there was. What room was next to that of the Countess ? — Bergami's. Was there a door from the Countess's to Bergami's? — .As well as I can re collect, there was a passage comraunicating between them. Whal room was next to Bergami's? — My own room. Did you assist the Princess to" her bed ?— Yes, I did sometimes. Tp do so, had you to pass through Bergami's room ? — Yes, I had. Did you ever see him in bed ? — Sometimes I did. Did the Princess ever call you up in the morning ?— Yes, sometiraes 3 and sometimes Bergami did. How did she come to call you ? — Through' Bergami's doort* Did she open that door ? — Yes. In what state was she as to dress when she so came ?— In the same cloak I have already described. Was she in her night-dress? — Yes, she was. Was Bergami then in his room ? — Yes, sometimes-he was, and sometimes he 'Was not. When Bergarai opened his door al any sime, did yon see the door of the Princess's roora open or shut?— I saw it, I think, generally open. Do you remember when the Princess went lo bed at Messina? was it early Or late? — Sometimes early, and sometimes late. Who attended to undress her? — Sometimes I did, sometimes my sister.- Have you made any remark about her e.'cpression to Bergami at any time ? Ves, I have. ? See the note on the manners of Italy and tht offite of an Il«liati SobliSti pi 177. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 357 What was it? what did you remark ?— Sometimes she called him Chevalier mon caur, sometimes her dear frieiiii. That vvas what 1 remarked. Were the terras you use those used by the Princess lo Bergami at any sepa ration from him ? — Yes. Does the vvitness remember the parting between thera at any period for a short time, after their arrival at Me-Jsina ?— Yes, I do. Do you remember any particular expressions used on such an occasion by her Royal Highness to Bergami ? — Yes. What e.xpression do you recollect ? — She called him her chevalier, and said, " Adieu, mon coeur I take care." Did you hear the Princess use any other expressions to him ? — I don't pre cisely recollect, except what I have mentioned. What do you mean by saying you do not precisely recollect ? — I raean that I have said the expressions 1 recollect. Did you observe the Princess and Bergami doing anj? thing when they parted ? — I only recollect that they embraced. Did you see thera kiss each olher? — ihey did. Tbe Interpreier begged leave to say that the term used by the vvitness was s'embrasser, vvhich had the signification in French of kissing. Did you ever see thera kiss each other? — I did not; but I heard them kiss behind me.* ' ^ Were you on board the Clorinde with the Princess when she raade the voy age from Messina to Syracuse? — I was; I went with.lhe Princess. Did you see Bergami on board the C/orJ«rfe?— 1 did. What dress did he usually wear? — .As far as I recollect, his ordinary dress was a blue great coal. Do you recollect at any tirae during that voyage to have particularly seen Bergarai in the Princess's cabin? — I do; I recollect once. Where was the Princess at the time you saw Bergami in her cabin ?— She was in her cabin also. How was she situated there ? was she sitting up or in bed.? — In bed. Was it in the day or in the night time ? — It was in the day. How was the Princess lying in the bed ? — She had just laid down. Where was Bergami ? — -He vvas on a bed in the cabin, near the Princess's. How long was he there ?— I think, as well as I recollect, he was there half an hour. Was he sitting Upon or lying down in the bed ? — I think, lying dovvn. Doyou recollect where the Princess resided on her arrival in Syracuse ?^I think m a house a little out of the por^. Can you describe how the bedrooms vvere arranged in that house? — I slept in the same room with the Countess Oldi. Where was that ? — Next the dining-room. Was there another bed-room at the same side of the dining-room— -the side where you slept ? — Yes, there was. Who slept there ?--I think the gentleraen of the Princess's household. • The evidence still falls short of proving that Ihe Princess ever did kiss the Baron. Signor Majochi, of veracious memory, only swears he heard, or thought he heard, the sourd of kissing iu the next roora, when the Count was sick. The gardener fMiardi) i^esterday Said that they made " a sort ot laotioa like kissing." Dumont swears she heard kissing behind! All this, however, won't do. If the Attomey-Genetsd cannot establish k raere kissing 6p un- s went to bed while you were at supper, did you make any particular observation? — No: bul I did in the raornini;. What morning ? — Either the follouiiig morning, or the morning after that, U'liat didyou, then see? — I savv the Princess curne out of the Countess of Oldi's room,* and enter her own bed-room. At what hour in the morning was that? — 1 think about ten o'clock. Had the Princess any thing in her hand, or under her arm, at the time ? — Yes, she had. What? — The pillow or cushion vvhich she always slept upon. How was the Princess dressed? — She vvas not dressed then ; she vvas in her night-dress, after being undressed. What night-dress did she wear? — I don't recollect. , Did she usually wear a night-dress after being undressed to go to bed ? — Yes; I don't recollect. Cannot you tell vvhat part of her dress she usually wore at night when she retired to bed ? — Yes ; after I undressed the Princess she had on a small white night-gown or dress. Was that white gown or dress her ordinary night-dress? — Sometimes. Did she wear any other night-dress ? — Sometimes she had a silk cloak thrown over her. . Was. that silk cloak in addition lo the white night-gown of which you have been speaking ? — Yes, bhe wore it also. Where did tbe Countless of Oldi sleep ? — In a small bed put up for her in the Princess's room. Do you know where the little Victorine slept then ? — Yes; vvith the Coun tess ot Oldi. How do you know ?— Because I heard the child cry in the night in that room. Was that the night preceding the morning when you saw the Princess corae out of the room where Bergarai slept with the pillow ? — 7 think it was, [Several Peers hero expressed a desire that the last few answers given by the wiluess should be repeated by the short-hand writer from his notes.] • Here is another monstrous falsehood put down by the Attorney-General's own evidence. In his opening speech, he said, " on one occasion, the^&s de chambre having sat up later than usual observed the door of Bergami's room open, and the I'rincess coming out of it under cir cumstances wbich sausfied them that she had passed the nighl there. She was undressed, and had under her arm a pillow on which it was her custom to sleep." p. 52. The first two lines of this contain three palpable lier. First, it was not late at night but iu the morning when this incident happened, if it ever did happen. Secondly, it was not ' Bergami's room but the roorh of the Countess of Oldi from which the Princess carae. Thirdly, it is not said she was seen by the files de chambre but only by one file— the witness. It is hardly possible to croi»d more falsehoods in a smaller space. The fact itself may be wholly unfounded. Like/ Ihe mason's story of Adam and Eve, it rests on the testimony of ono individual. Dumont may have ihvented the story altogether; she does not, say that any one saw the Princess but her self, therefore she is safe from contradiction. At idl events, Bergami was sick at the time this ciwomstance is alleged to have h-appencH. 260 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The Earl of Liverpool suggested that the short-hand writer would refer lo that part of the e^'idencc given by the vvitness where she 'spoke ofhis changing his bed-room. Il appeared to him that some questions were necessary to ex plain, in a cleaier point of view, the situation of the apartments of the Prin cess and the Countess of Oldi alter this alleged removal of Bergami. The bhort-hand writer read the latter part of the witness's evidence, and the Solicitor-General resumed his examination. You. first stated that the Countess of Oldi's room and yours joined the Princess's?— Yes, 1 did. Where was Bergami removed in the illness you have been speaking of ?-^ To the Countebs of Oldi's room. Was that next yours, and also next the Princess's ? — It was. Where did the Countess sleep while Bergami occupied her room .'.-"She had a small bed placed for her and the child in the room of the Princess. You have said that Bergami, in consequence of illness, came to lie in -the bed-roojn before occupied by the Countess of Oldi. How long was this from the time you have spoken ofl-r^l do not accuralely remember the time, but he was three or four days in the same room. Was it one, or two, or three, or four days ? I do not ask you to speak pre* cisely ? — I believe not more than one or two. How long after that morning, as nearly as you can remember, did he con tinue to sleep in tbe room of the Countess of Oldi ? — I do not precisely remem,- Oer if it was one or two days. It is so long ago that I cannot precisely re- mera ber. ' ^ Was she sleeping there at the time you have alluded to when the Princess came out of that room ?— Yes. Doyou remember, on the night before the morning of which you have spoken, hearing the door of your room open? — I heard the door\of my room xipen one evening, but i cannot remember if it was before the morning of which I have spoken. I do not remember if it was the night before I saw the Prin cess come out of the room, I heard the dopr open after I was in bed ; but I do notl'emember if it was before the time 1 have spieiken of. At the lime when you so heard the door open, being so sleepring in bed, was Bergami sleeping-in the rooin before occupied by the Countess of Oldi? — He occupied the same room. JMr. Brougham objected that the wiiness had answered the question before it had been translated to her by the interpreter. AJ the time when the Princess came out of the room, in the way you have desciibed, with the pillow, did the Princess see you ?— .The Princess looked 3t me, ' Whe.n the Princess looked at you, vyhat pbservation did you make as to what she did ? what did she do f~She fixed her eyes pu me, She looked at me earnestly. Whal did she then do ?— She went on to her own room. Did she say any thing? — No. Had you been in the habit of remaining gs iateas ten o'clock in that room? — No ; I generally went to breakfast at nine. , During the lime Bergami was sleeping in the, room of the Coujitess of Oldi, before you went to breakfast, at 9 o'clock, usually, had the ^R*p of the Princess's room or of Bergami's room been opened ? — I never saw thenji open. ? During the time that Bergami slept in that ropm, had you ever been called IfRtAL OF THE QDEtNi 261 to divss or attend upon the Princess, before you went to breakfast at 9 o'clock ? — No. When you returned from breakfast^ how did you find the doors ?— Shut* But sometimes the Princess was up. Was the Princess in ber own room ? — Yes. You were describing something that passed in the Princess's room with respect to Victorine, did you describe all you heard ? — I have heard the child cry " Maminat" and the Countess of Oldi try to soothe her. At the time when the Princess came through your roora, were you sleeping alone in bed ? — I was up. Were you alone ? Was any other person in the roora ?— As far as I remem-' ber, my sister was in the sarae room. Do you remember if she was up or in bed ? — My sister was up. When the Princess first saw you in the morning, how did she address you ? Was she iu the habit of saying any thing to you ? — She generally said to me " Good morning." When you saw her upon tbat occasion, did she say any thing to you or to your sisler ? — She said nothing at all to me. While the Princess was at Catania^ was her picture painted by any person ? — Yes. Do you remember the name of the artist by whora the picture was painted ? ^— No. Do you knov^ in What character she was painted ? The interpreier put the question " costume/' I ask in what character ? — I remember how she Was painted at Augusta^ but not how she was painted at Catania. You have spoken of Augusta : do you reraember in what character the Princess was painted there ? — Yes. In what character ? — As a I'urkish Woman. Did you ever see any other picture of the Princess besides that which yoil have mentioned at Augusta during your voyage or in Sicily ?— I have seen another portrait. In what character ?— A penitent Magdalen. Do you remember in what plate that portrait was painted? — At Augustai How much of the person did that picture represent ? the head only, or rnor^ than the head ? — As low as the waist. How was the upper part of the person ? was it covered or uncovered in ths p^icture ? — Uncovered. How were the breasts ; covered, or not ? The interpreter, M. Pinarioj rendered " the breasts" by the word " gorge," -^The witness answered, uncovered. Mr. Gastano, the Queen's interpreter; denied that the word " gorge" was properly applied. ' " Gorge" meant "neck" rather than " the breast." Thd word *' gorge" might sometimes imply " the breast," but not clearly. . You have described part of the person as uncovered ; say how low the part extended which was uncovered ? —As low as here. [The witness drew her, arm across her breast at that point to Which the bosom of a lady, in full dressj is crtmraonly uncovered.] Were the breasts covered or uncovered ? — It Was uncovered as low as here. Besides the two jjicturcs you have described, was any other picttire painted of the Princess while she was in Sicily ? — Another portrait was painted'. ' 38 .262 .TRIAL OF a-HE* QUEEN. Where was that portrait taken ? at what place, as well as- you can remem*' ber ? — I do not know if it was taken at Catania or at Augusta. : In What -character was that portrait' taken ?— In a common dress, as the Princess was used to dress. This portrait of the Magdalen,, did the witness ever see that portrait in the possession of any one ? — Bergami showed it to me one day at A ugusta, and told me that it belonged to hira. Mr. Brougham submitted that the answer of the witness raust be confined to her having seen the picture in the possession of Bergami. The suggestion was agreed to. -^ The second po-rtraiC of which you have made mention — that in the Turkish dress — did you afterwards see that in the possession of any one ?-^No. Doyou know if a portrait of Bergami was taken ? — Yes. First, go back to Naples ; and say, did you see any portrait of Bergami at Naples ?— Yes. In whose possession ? — In the possession of nobody. Where did you see it ? — Bergami showed it to the. You have said that Bergami's portrait was painted' in Sicily: in, what character ? — In a comraon- dress-. Was not more than one picture of Bergami painted '" Sicily ? — Yes. . What character was tho second picture in ^ — As a Turk. How was the dress arranged aboul the upper part of the person ? was it open or closed ? — -According to the Turkish costume. It was "open as low as here (the breast). Were there raore than those two pictures you have mentioned painted in Sicily ? — There have been more. Did you ever see any of these portraits in the possession of any other per son ? Any one of them ? — I have seen a portrait of the Princess in the pos session of the Counless of Oldi. . The Solicitor-General doubted if the answer of the witness had been cor rectly translated. Mr. Gastano, the Queen's interpreter, said, that the words of the witness. M-ere, "I have seen one of the Princess in the possession of the Countess of Oldi." You have said that you saw different porliiiits of Bergami painted. I wish to know whether you have seen any one of those portraits in the possession oS. another person ?. — I saw one of thera once in a little box belonging to the Princess, Which of the pictures you have described ?-^That as a Turk. ' ' Do you know if the Princess assisted at any tirae in arranging the dress of ^ ''Bergami for the purpose of any of these pictures ? — The Princess arranged a- turban. Did she do any thing else to any part of the dress ? — :I do not remeraber. Did the Princess ever say any thing to you about the dress,i or the- manner in which she liked it best? — I do not reraember. Did Bergami receive a title at Catania? — He was raade a- knight of Malta.- Did he receive any olher title at Catania or Augusta? — At Augusta he was Baron Franchini. ' How long did the Princess stay at Catania ? — ^Ncar que month. Do you remember, upon arriving at Augusta, the house in which the rriiiccss resided ? — Yes. TKIAL OF THE QI?]5EN. '263 Do you remember in that house the disposition pf the bed-chambers of the Princess and of Bergarai? — Ves. •Will you describe them ?— They were separated by a small yard, a passage, with a little room in which nobody was. Did that arrangement continue during the whole time the Princess was, at Augusta, or vvas it afterwards clKinged ? — There was a change. W'hen that change took place, where was the bed-room of Bergami? — Ber gami's sleeping-room vvas next that of the Princess. Mr. Gastano said the expression of the witness was pres (near.) ' "Was there any communicaiion between the bed-rooras of Bergarai and the Princess? — Yes, there was a door. Did that door lead immediately from one room to tbe olher? — Yes. Where was the bed-room which you occupied ? — By the side of that of Bergami. Was there a door leading from the bed-room of Bergami into that of the witness ? — Yes. What vvas done with the door at night? — It was always shut at night ; in the evening, (soir). When you say it was always shut at night, what do you mean ? Do you mean that it vvas merely shut, or that it was locked ? — I heard Bergarai sorae tiraes try if it was locked. . v Defciribe more particularly whal you saw Bergami do. — Bergarai was in his room, and was trying if the door was locked with a key. At Augusta, did you assist the Princess in undressing? — Yes. After you had retired to your room, after assisting the Princess to undress, did you hear any thing in the room of Bergami ? — I sometimes heard a whisper in the room of Bergami. From whom was the whisper? — I cannot precisely remember, because I merely heard a whisper. Where did .the -Princess breakfast at Augusta? — I do nol remember. Do you reraeraber where Bergami breakfasted ? — I do not remember. But I once saw a breakfast-tray in the room of Bergami,. In answer to my question aboul the pictures, you said tbat you had seen the Princess arrange a turban for the Tul^^ish picture; did you see the Princess ever arrange or do any thing else to any olher part of live dress of Bergami for ainy of the -other pictures ? — Yes. Say what that was. — The Princess arranged the i>eck of his -shirt; opened it so. (Describing.) Did the Princess say any thing ? What observation did she make? — The Priilcess said that she liked him best so; or that she liked it hest so. Have the goodness to repeat the words which the Princess used, as if your self were speaking tbeip. — When the shirt was open, . she said, " I like him or it best so. A discussion tben took place as to the proper translation of the expression of the witness.. The words were " fe I'aime mieux comme ga." They were at length recorded in that shape. ' Did tiic witness go on board the polacre, " The Industry," a( Augusta? —Yes. Doyou remember where Bergami sleptin the early part of the voyagCj the "first day or two? — As well as I can remember, in a small cabin near the after end. A chair was here given to the witness. Afterwardsj was the sieeping-olace of Bargami changed ? — Yes. 264 TRIAL OF THE QUEEX. Where did he afterwards sleep ? — In the dining-^cabin. How many doors were there leading into the dining-cabin ? — There were two. Were they both open, or was one closed f — One' was open>- and the other closed. ' The door which was opeii, was that on the side on whicb Bergami slept, or on the opposite side ? — As well as I remember it was on the other side. Where did you yourself sleep? — By the side of tbe door which was open. How long did Bergami continue to sleep in the dining-room? — As well las I remember, during the voyage. Did any one .sleep in the dining-room except Bergami?— I never saw but' one bed in the dining-room. Where did the Princess sleep? — In the cabin, near the place where Bergami's bed was. Where did the Countess of Oldi sleep ? — In a cabin on the other side. Was the cabin of the Countess of Oldi a cabin wbich Communicated to ihe dinjng-roora ? — Yes. \yere those three persons the only three who slept there ?— Yes. Was the door of the dining-room shut or open at night ? — It was shut. By " shut" do you mean merely closed, or do you mean locked ? — I o'nly saw it ^ul : I cannot say if it was locked with a key. Did you ever go inlo the dining-room when Bergarai was in bed ?i — Yes. Did you ever see the Princess in bed at the same time ? — Yes. • • Was the door opening from the cabin of the Princess into the dining* room shut or open? — Sometimes open j sometimes shut. Did you ever see it open when Bergami was in bed, and when the Princess was also in bed ? — Yes. Can you mention any thing which passed between tbem ; whether they conversed together or nbt ? — I saw thpm twice sppaking together. Did you go with ihe Princess to Tunis ? — ^Yes, Where did thePrincess reside at Tunis? — At first in the hiouse of the British consul; afterwards in a palace belonging to the Bey. Do you remember the situation of the bed-'rooms of Bergapi and the Princess in the palace of the Bey ? — Yes, Ca;j you describe thera ? — They were separated by a room which no onft occupied, and a small cabin, or passage. Do you know whether any olher person of the suite slept near that place ? —The Countess of Oldi, my sisler, and myself. Did the room in which your sister and yourself slept open into the roora in whiph there was nobody ? — Yes. Did any room except that of the Countess of Oldi, and the other two you ha»«e mpniioned, open into that room? — No. Was there any other door leading from that room you have described in which no one slept ? — I saw none at all. Was there any door in that room which was closed at night? — Yes. Which door was that? — The door which led to the yard ; to au inner yard which was in the house in tbe court. When that door was shut, could any one have access to that room or to the sleeping apartments? — I do not know. Dp you remember going to Utica? — Yes., Where did you reside there? — In a small country house. Doyou know the situation of the apartments of the Princess and BergftiKii,, at Utica? — I do not know, at Utica, where Bergami slept.* * So then Bergami did not slwsiwa sleisis nfiiv/-^'%:/. Tr- 'I ,t . TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, 265 Doyou know where Bergami slept at Tunis? — Yes. Where?— In a room which was near lo ours. Did ybu at any time, at Tunis, in the morning, before the Princess left hfcr bed-poom, see Bergami ? — I do not reraeraber. Can you say where Berga|ni slept at Utica ? — Ido not know. Did you, in the morning, at Utica, before the Princess had left her bed room, see Bergarai ? — Yes. Was it before the Princess was up or not? — Before she was up, What didyou see Bergami do? — Bergami passed through our room, atid went into the room of the Princess. How long did he remain there ?— 1 do not remember. Didyou afterwards go inlo the room ? — I only went to the threshold of the door : the Princess asked me for something. Did you see if the Princess was still in bed? — I saw that the Princess v»'as still in bed. Was Bergami still in the room? — Bergami was still in the room. After the Princess had spoken to you, what did you do? Did you go into the room, or did you retire? — I withdrew. Do you remember going, while at Tunis, to a place called Zavouan ? — Yes. Do you know in what apartment the Princess slept at Zavouan ? — Yes. Do you know what apartment vvas appropriated for the bed-room of Ber garai ?.— I do not reraember. Do you know where the Countess of Oldi slept? — In the same room where I slept. What room was there adjoining the bed-room of the Princess? — '^'he room in which the Princess dined. Did you see the bed of the Princess in a raorning? — Yes. Did it appear to you as if one person, or more than one person, had slept in it ? — It seemed to me much in disorder. Can you say, according to your judgement, looking at the bed, whether one or two persons had slept in it ? — I cannot say, that two persons had slept in the bed ; but it rather appeared to rae, that two persons had slept in it. Why so ? — I cannot exactly say; because it was in great disorder; I have already told you, because it seemed in great disorder. Did you embark at Tunis for the purpose of continuing your voyage? — Yes. Vou went to Oostbina j and afterwards did you go to St. Jean d'Acre ? — Yes. Did you go to Jerusalem ? — Yes. Where did you land to go to Jerusalem ? — At St. Jean d'Acre. " Do you remember being at a place called Aun ? — Yes. How many, as near as you can recollect, did the party consist of-^you and the attendants? — I cannot precisely say. Did you sleep in any house at Aun, or did you encamp ? — VVe slept in tents. Did the Princess sleep in a tent f — Yes. Was it a single or a double tent ? — As far as I can recollect, it was double. Was there any bed under that tent ? — There were two. Did you attend to undress her Royal Highness ? — Yes. Where was Bergami ?— He was lying on one of the beds. Did you, at the time of which you speak, leave the Queen undressed or up ? —I left her undressed, in the bed. Was Bergami dressed, undressed, or partly undressed ?— He was dressed, but he had no coat on. Did you retire, on that occasion, at the usual time ?— Yes. 266 TRIAL OF THE QtrEEJf. At what time in the evening did you pursue your journey ? — Nearly at si.\ o'clock. ' ' •Did you see the other gentlemen of the suite come out of their tents ? — Yes. Did you see pergami corae out of the tent?^No. ,1; AVherc did you see Bergami that evening, about the time you were pre paring to pursue your journey ? — I saw Bergami near the tent of her Royal Highness. Undressed,, or how? — As he went in dressed in themorning, without his coat. Where did he come frora ? — I saw him near her Royal Highness's tent; but I do not know what place he came out of. You have told us, that ypu left her Royal Highness in the morning when she retired to rest on the bed in the tent, and that you left Bergami there also. Was the lent dovvn or not at that time? — The tent was let down, as far- as I can recollect. It was shut on all sides. Did you dress her Royal Highness in the evening, before she commenced her journey ? — Yes. Did you' attend her Royal Highness in the course of that journey? and did you, before you arrived at Jerusalem, sl|eep in tents? — Yes. •Did her Royal Ilighness sleep under the sarae tent as before ? — Yes. Mr. Denman here objected to the raode in which the questions vyere inter preted^ the interpreter being in the habit of changing the preter into the pre- ter-perfect tense. Werelherelvvobedsunder the tent the second limeof raising the tents ? — Yes. Did you undress, ber Royal Highness the second tirae? — As far'as I can recollect, it was my sister that undressed her. Doyou remeraber where her Royal Highness resided at Jerusalera ? — Yes.. . Where was il ? — In a house that belonged to a convent, as far as I recollect, ¦ Do you reraember the situation of the apartment of her Royal Highness, of Bergami, and of the Countess of Oldi, at that convent? — Yes. Say how they were situated ? — They were up in a gallery. Did the doors of their respective rooms open into that gallery? — Yes. . , Were there any Other rooms for the suite but those that opened into that^ gallery?— As far as 1 can recollect, there was no other. Was there {\o other doors into the gallery but those ypu have described? — There was a door to go down. Was that door closed ?---I do not recollect. Do you remember any day, during the time you were.at Jerusalem, seeing Bergami in the room of her Royal Highness? — Yes. . - Where vvas he? was it, in the bed-room of her Royal Highness ?—T-He en tered the bed-room of her Royal Highness while I was there, and threw him self on tbe bed in a, ludicrous or jesting way. Was her Royal Highness in the room at the lime ? — Yes. Did he retnain on the bed ? — Not long. During the day-time, while you were at Jerusalem, did you see her Royal Higbness and Bergami in the gallery you have described?^-! sometimes savv them in tbe morning in tbe gallery. Was Bergami there ? — Yes. What was be doing ? — They spoke together. Describe what you savv them doipg, during the time you were at Jerusalem, in the gallery ?— -I recollect nothing but to see them talking together. When you saw them in the gallery, hovy washer Royal Highness dressed ? — She was dressed in a raorning cloak. ; , TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, 267 Had she any other part of her morning dress on? — Sho had the same dress on that she wore when she was going to lie down. You have told us that Bergami slept in the dining-room on board the vessel, and that her Royal Highness slept in the cabin till you arrived at Jaffa: where" did she sleep afterwards ? — On the deck. VVas there a tent there ? — Yes. What was in the tent? — Two small beds. Did her Royal Highness sleep in one of those beds ? — Yes. Did you assist in undressing ber ? — No. Who did ? — I do not know. Did any body sleep in the other bed ? — M. Bergami. Did that continue during the whole voyage from Jaffa to Italy?— -Yes. While ber Royal Highness slept in her cabin, near the dining-room, where did Victorine sleep ?— I don't know whether she slept in the cabin of her Royal Highness, or in that of the Counless of Oldi. After her Royal Highness went to sleep on the deck, who slept in the cabin before occupied by her Royal Highness?— I'h'e litlle Victorine, my sister, and I myself, by turns, to take care of the child. What became of the bed that was occupied by Bergarai below ? — I don't recollect. Do you recollect her Royal Highness bathing on-board ? — Yes. Did she bathe more than once ? — I only recollect once. Who attended her ? — Bergami. .. Did they both come up together afterwards, or did Bergami come. up first? —Bergami came to call me on the deck to go and dress her Royal Highness. At the time you vvere so called by Bergami to dress her Royal Highness, bow long had they been together? — Nearly three quarters of an hour. '' Who assisted in getting the water for the bath ? — I saw Theodore Majochi at the door with a pail of water in his hand. Have you ever seen her-Royal Highness and Bergami under the tent on deck in the day-time? — Yes. Once, or oftener? — Often. How did her Royal Highness employ herself on board the vessel? — She often worked for little Victorine. Do you ever recollect that she worked for any other person ? — I do not recollect. (The witness here requested leave to retire, which was granted.) On the return of the witTiess, the examination was resumed as follows : — When you went down, in consequence of being desired to dress her Royal Highness after the bath, in what state did you find her ? — She was standing in her own cabin. Had she any clothes on? — ^The same dress as I said she had on the evening before when 1 undressed her — a gown, a robe de'chambre. Did you then assist in dressing her i" — Yes. You have been asked how her Royal Higbness employed herself on board the vessel ; now state how you saw Bergami employed ? — He was almost the vvhole day lying dovvn on the bed. When you speak of his being the whole day lying on his bed, what bed do you mean, after you left Jaffa ?'^The little bed that was so placed on the deck, under the tent. When you saw him first in themorning, vvhat dress had he ou ?--He bad a kind of Greek gown, with wide sleeves. 268 . TRIAL ot THte QlUEfeNi ' Did you ever see him do any thing to amuse her Royal Higbness ?— -"Jfes^ .Sometimes. Tell us what you saw ? — I have seen him playing different tricks — jokes. Once I saw him take a cushion and put it under his go'wn, and walk about the deck. At the time he put that cushion under his gown, did he put it in front ? — Yes. Did you observe what her Royal Highness did ? — She laughed. Do you' remember any shirts being made on board, by her Royal HighnesSj for Bergami? — As far as I can recollect, the Counless of Oldi made shirts for Bergami. Did the Princess make any of them V — She was often at Work. Did she say any thing about these shirts ? — She said that she would make thera herself. What passed on that occasion ? what was the conversatiouj as nearly as you can recollect ? — Her Royal Highness said to Bergamif that she wished to make those shirts herself. ' What farther passed i did you say any thing lo her Royal Higbncssj or to any other person, about it? — Bergami said be wanted to have sorae sin ris made : hef Royal Highness said she would make them herself. What did Bergami do ? — He smiled. Were those the shirts made by the Countess of Oldi? — I don't know whether they were the same shirts ; but the Counless of Oldi made some shirts for Did Bergarai ever give you any thing to make on board ? — ^Yes, sometimeSj Did the Queen also give you any thing ? — Yes. AVhat was it? — I cannot recollect. ^ Where did you land in Italy? — AtTerracinaj in the Campayna di Roma. - Did you go frora that lo the Villa d'Este ?— Yes. On your return therej or shortly afterwards, 'was any change madS in thd bed-room of her Royal Highness ? — 'V'es. We will speak presently raore particularly as to that. When you went to Jerusalem* was any order Conferred on Bergami there? — Yes. Whal order? — The order which I savv was the order of the Holy Sepulchre. Was there any other order? 'was any order instituted at Jerusalem? — The order of St. Caroline was instituted, but 1 don't know exactly whether at Jerusalem or not. Was that order conferred on Bergamij or was afiy rank or situation in that order conferred on Bergarai by her Roval Higbness ? — Bergami was made Grand Master of that order. Was he, in fact, appointed Grand Master of that order? — Yes. Did he afterwards wear that order ? — Yes. , The vvitness was stating, that after her return to the Villa d'Este af change was made in the bed-rooln of her Royal Highness. How long was that after her return ? — Near three weeks afterwards. Do you recollect the new situation of the bed-room of her Royal Highness ? »— Yesi Had it a communication with the bed-room of Bergami ? — Yes. How did that bed-roora coramunicate with the rest of tbe house ? was there any corridor or passage? — Yes, there 'was a corridor that communicated with the rest of the house. Was there any door at the extremity of that cotridor ? — Nearly in the mid-' die of the corridor there was a door. . TRIAL OF THE QUE^H. '2().9 \Vas that door opeaoi: shut at, nighl ? — It was s)i,ut al night,. In consequence of that nevy disposition of the apartments, was any alleialion made io ihi} wall of the inlermediaie room? — I savv masons at work, in ord.:r to forra ao opening in the wall to raake room for a door near to. that of her Royal Ilighness's chamber. In passing from the bed-room of her Royal Higlinqss to that occupied l?y Bergami, did you go ihrough that opeiiiiii; so made? — Yes. Do y-ui remeraber on your return to the Villa d'Este, tbat any new table was formed for the servants ? Did you notice it to any one ? Mr. Brougham obiecled to this mode of putting the question. It was, in effect, putting a leading question, and might perhaps be resorted to in a niore grave part of the case. 'The Solicitor-General did not ask " Do you know so and S9, or how did you do so and so ?" and he got over the difficulty of asking a direct leading question by inquiring " Did you ever say so and so to A or B?" The misfortune of this was that he could not take his objection until after the -question was asked, and a certain impression made. The Solicitor-General contended, that, so long as be did not ask a leading question, he had a right to pursue the line of examination that was objected to. He did not mean lo say that putting the question in that way would not have the effect of a leading question ; but, so long as he did not put a leading question, he had a right lo proceed. Mr. WilUams said, her Majesty's counsel were placed in a very avykwaid situation, since they were compelled, over and over again, to make objections, " even where the. questions were not important; but it certainly was a very cri tical point for them to know precisely the line between whal might and. what might not be received in evidence ; since, otherwise, that which was overlooked on trifling points might be insisted on when the matter was of great mnmenl. Who dined at that table?— The mother of M. Bergami, his sister Faustina, his brother Lewis, and one of his cousins. What was the name of that cousin ? [We could not collect the answer.] Did he hold any office in the palace ? — Yes; he vvas accomptant. What situation did Lewfis Bergami hold?— He was made prefect of the palace. Where was the husband of Faustina ? [We could nol collect the answer.] You have told us before that tbe mother of Bergami vvas called " Nonna;" how was she called after your return to the Villa d'Este?— She was called Donna Livia. > Do you remeraber the thealre'at the Villa d'Este ?— Yes. Did you ever see Lewis Bergarai act any thing on fhat theatre ?— Yes. Did you ever see him play any thing on that theatre with her Rpyai fligh- ness ? — Yes ; he danced, dressed like Harlequin, and her Royal Highness dressed like Columbine ?* — (A laugh,) Did you observe gold ear-rings which Bergami wore ? — Yes. Did you ever observe them again? — I savv ear-rings afterwards worn by, her Royal Highness ; I believe they vvere the same. Did her Royal Highness continue to wear them ?. — Yes. Did ypu observe ear-rings worn by Victorine ? — Yes ; they were changed at d'Esle. * Cettjunly. nothing 9riminal can be inferred from this. Pepple af all ranks frequently amuse themselves in dramatic leptesenta tions. Metaitasio wrote liis Ojieras to be per&rmfed by the Austrian Princesses. .- t - , " ' - .. S9 2'70 TRIAL OF tttE QUEENi Did you see tbem after they were changed and worn by Victorine ? — I saw them afterwards in the ears of her Royal Higbness. Were they in the ears of her Royal Highness at the sarae tirae as the others? ¦^Yes. Were they united, or separate^ or how ? describe the manner. — They were separate^ one in each ear. Describe how, separately, or how? — Both in the same hole. Did you observe any presents made by her Royal Highness to Bergami ?— Sometimes Bergami bad presents frora her Royal Highness. Describe what kind. — Soraething gold ; I could not well describe them'. Did you observe a cap worn by Bergami ? — Yes. Did you observe a cap Worn by her Royal Highness? — Yes. Was it the sarae kind ? — Yes; it was a cap, red, and of the same make that I saw on tbe head of her Royal Highness. Where was it raade? — Itwas made in Naples. Doyou remember a black silk cravat worn by Bergami? — Generally he Wore in the morning a black silk cravat. Do you remember seeing that cravat any where else ? — YeSj in her Royal Highness's room. , Was that once; twice, or several times? — Several limes. Do you remeraber the slippers of Bergami ? — I savv thera once. What kind were they ? — White slippers. Did you observe thera any where else? — Yes, soraetiraes in her Royal High ness's roora. A Peer. — What room ? — Her Royal Highness's bed-room. Do you ever remember any thing else, any part of Bergami's dress there ? ¦ — I don't recollect. ' Do you remember the second night at Bagossa, as you were going to Jerusalera, to have observed any thing belonging lo Bergami in the tent of her Royal Highness ? — I savv something belonging to Bergarai, but I cannot recol lect what description. When you saw something belonging to Bergami, do ypu mean a part of his dress? — Yes. Do you reraember the residence of Count Pino ? —Yes. Did her Royal Highness visit Count Pino's residence before she visited . Greece ? — Yes. Did you sleep near or far off from her Royal Highness at the house of Count Pino ? — Near. Was there any door opening from your room to the bed-room of her Royal Highness ?-^Yes. Did Bergami come into your roora that night ? — When I lay down I saw Bergami pass through ray roora. How did he go ? — He passed towards the room of her Royal Highness.*' Was there any light in your room ? — There was a little lantern. Did you see him come out ? — I fell asleep and did not see him come out. Do you recollect how long this was" before the voyage to Greece ?— It was not very long before, nearly three weeks» You know La Barona ? — Yes. * This it appears was done quite openly, without any kind o^ precaution. Really such incidents as this, and those raentioned abdve, about wearing Bergami's cap, &c. look much more like playfulness and innocent gaiety than any conscious criminality. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, Qf I To whom does it belong ? — It belongs to Bergami. What does it consist of? — Of a house and an estate. What was the name of the house ? — Villa Bergarai. Was there any other house at Barona but the house you call Villa Bergarai ? -.-Yes, a hinner's house. While yvu vvere at d'Esle, before you went tp Greece, did her Royal High ness visit Ihe Barona a second time ? — Yes. Did yon accompany ber ? — Yes. Doyou remember the situation of the beds at the Barona? — Yes. Will you describe the situation of the beds? — They were separated by a passage ; there vvas a small cabinet ; the bed-room of her Royal Highness was on one side, the bed-room of Bergami on the other, tbe cabinet was between them. What did the staircase lead to ? — The ssaircase led down in order to go out of the house. Was there any corridor or passage ?— Yes, there was a passage, Was there a door in the corridor ? — Yes. Was it shut or open at night ? — It was shut. When it was shut, could any person go to her Royal Highness's room or to Bergami ? — No, unless ihrough the other door ihrough the passage which I have already mentioned. Must one have gone dovvn the stairs and cpme up again for the purpose 1 — It was necessary to go down and then to come up on the other side. Were there other doors to the street which opened into the saipe corridor? — There were other doors. Were they on the same side? — There were four doors on this line, (describing aline,) and the door of the corridor here (describing some position which we could not observe.) When the door in the passage was shut did it cut off the coramunipation from tbe four doors? — Yes, when the door was shut. The question was repeated by Mr. Gurney, and answered in the sarae terms, How long did you continue at Barona ? — At the first time two or three days, You afterwards returned ? — Yes. How long did you continue then at Barona ? — Near two months. Was Bergami and her Royal Highness there the whole of that tirpe ? —No. Where did they go to ? — To Germany. How long vvere they at the Barona before they went fo Germany? — Nearly one month. Did you make any observations on the conduct -of Bergami and her Royal Highness, how they conducted themselves towards each other during this tijnp | I made no particular observation, How did they address each olher ? — The Pripcess sometimes said " Bergami," and soraetiraes " Tu," thou, to Bergami, and Bergami said ^* Princess" to her. A Peer. — How is that question taken down? — (It was repeated, and the \n- ferpreter explained that it was the second person singular which her RoyaJ Highness used.) How did the rest of the servants address her Royal IJighness ?-7-They comr monlysaid,' " your Royal Higbness." AtBarona did you observe Bergami dP any thing to her Roj^al Highness .F^s J do not recollect, 1272 TRIAL Ol!' ^TH'e QUEEN. Do you reraember any bklls at Barona ? — Ye"s. Who attended those balls ?— People'of'Iow condition. Did you ever hear herRoyalHighhessand Bergarai spfelik of coriflhct ht one of fhdse balls?— Yes. Did you yourself raake any observation on the cdhdiict of jiersdUs "at the bali?— Ye's. Will you tell us what you saw, al^o, in pMeritfe of her Royal Highness ?— In presence of her Royal Highness I savv nothing particular. Do you remember Bergami ever saying any thing 'in the preSeHc'e ofher lloyal Wighhess ' — Yes, once. ' -What vvas it ?— Mr. Bergarai related a history— a ^tory of what happehedin fhe hduse. Did the story relate to persons al the ball ? — Yes. What ivas the story ? what had been dene ?— The story was 'so indecent I ¦ dare not repeat it. Was it told by Bergami fo fhe Princess ? — Yes. Was it in your presence? — Yes. [Manifest marks qf dissatisfaction were shown by the Peers^ The Solicitor-Geveral. — Without particularly mfentiohihg the story, can ypu fbU'ii's geherally vvhat it was ? — I have told you that I cannot repeat it. Lord Erskine raade some observation which we could not hear. 'ihe Solicitor-General, — Where is the Attorney-General ? The Lord CKantellor, — If the witness cannot state more, the whole of this part' of her evidence must be struck out. Several Peers. — Strike it out. (A few cries qf " N'o.") 'The SoUciior-General. — It must be struck out, or allhiust be stated : 'there is nft'dodbt of that. (The Attorney-General 'now tame into his place,) Tell us what the story was. — It was a fulsome slpry relating toa genlletrian arid one of the yoUrig Utimeh. , - What did Bergami tell of what passed between this p^rsbn"and tlife'^durig worain ? — He said all that had passed upoh the bed. *rhe Lord Chaticillor remarked, in an audible tone, \.\i&t'something'more*'in\i.st be given in evidence, or they could not receive this. Lord Erskine made a few observations on the very objectibhable chafacter of this evidence, (Hear, ^ear^ ; and said, that vvhtilev6r might be dotje here, such statements with which the Princess was not connected would at ohCe be * rejected in all other courts. (We regret that we could not he'ar distinctly the *piiirt3ort of his Lordship's objections to'the evidence.) "The Solicitor-General resumed. — What Bergami said was what passed on' the bed between the person mentioned and the young woman ? — BergSrni related all that passed. [The Hotise generally seemed much dissatisfied'wilh this evidence.] The Solicitor-General, — So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to have the whole struck but. (IleOr, hear.) The Lord Chancellor. — Consider it struck out, and go on. Mr. Broiigliarh. — I have ho curiosity to hear the 'sVory ; I had just as lieve get it out as not ; but I have no'vvish to press oh the modesty' of tbis'ivithess. — : ~ — 1 , — -J-.; * So Old f.quity ivHshed to hear a little more of the filthy story. Pf^y.how was the Prin. cess implic«tcd in whal had been done by two other persons. It does not appear she approved of the aneedole being i^elafed in Hit' preseiifcc. TRIAL OF THK. QUEEN. 273 There was a general cry of " Strike il out;" some, voices to our left cried " No." Tbe Earl of Lauderdale said something which vve could not hear. We believe it vvas struck out. Cries of " Go on, go on." Tiie'Solicitor-General resumed. During the time you were at tho Borromeo, did you go to Turin?— Yes. How long did you remain there? — Some days. Did you go lo Venice beforo you went to Greece ? — We went twice to Venice, once before the voyage to GreeCe, and the second time before going to Germany. Where did you lodge at Venice ?— As far as I recollect, at the Hotel dc la Grande Bretagne. Did her Royal Highness continue at fhe Hotel de la Grande Bretagne, or remove to another hbtise'?^— She reinbved to another hoUse, near the inn. H6w long did she remain at the hotel beftire she removed to'the private house ? — I believe only two day*. You have mentioned that Dr. Holland hnd Mr. William Burrell wenfwith lier Royal Highness on the jourHey to Venice; did fhey remain iat the inn, or go to the priv"dte hou'Se ? — As far as I fecollect, 'they remained tit the inn. You have mentioned that vvhile at Venice you went to Some place hi the Tyrol ; to what place ? — To remain there ? Solicitor-General.— tio-. To what'place did ybu go?— Wb Went through the Ty+dl'to'Germhhy. What place in the Tyrol did you stop at on ydui' way ?— It wis Scharnitz. Did Bergami go from Scharhitz to InSprucik ?— Yes, Bergdmi wferit to Inspruck for passports. At what time of the dky did Bergaini go?— I don't precisely recollect but I believe it Was in the morning. Do you recollect the room her Royal Highness slept in, and what artangie» ments were made on this occasion ? ^Yes. Who vVent to bed in the sanie chamber With her Rbyal Highness ?— Myself. At what tirae did you go to bed ? — It was nearly ten o'clock. What tirae did her Royal Highness go to bed ? — At the sarae time. In the sarae robin ? — Yes. Did Bergami return from Ins|irUck that'night ? - Yes. As far as you recollect, how long after ybu had gone lo'b'ed? — I don't re collect precisely, because I had already fallen asleep. Did you sleep in the same bed, or in another bed ? — No, there was a small bed teid bti the floor for me. After Bergami returned, did her Rbyal Hi'gh ness give you any orders vvhat to do ?— Her Royal Highness told rae I might take up my bed and -go. Did ybu see Bergarai 'before those orders were given? — -Yes, Mr. Bergami carae in at the same lime that the orders were given. Where? in the room of her Royal Highness? — Yes, Did you in consequence of the orders go away for the night ? — ^I left the room at the same raoraent. When'you left the room, had you left Bergami there, or was he gone? — I can'not exactly say Whether Bergami vvas in the room, but I believe he was. Can 'you' tell' abbut how long ywihad bfeen in bed When Bergami arrived? — It was nearly two hours,' or' twp hours and a half. Do you remeraber going to Carlsruhe ? — Yes. , Do you remember the description of the beds in Carlsruhe ? — Yes. 274 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ¦fell us how it was. — They were separated by a dining-room. Who made the Princess's bed ?— I don't know whether it was my sister or some other. Whose business was it to raake Bergarai's bed? — I don't know whether it was the servant, but I saw a woraan belonging to tbe house make his bed. There uas a woman in the house. While you vvere at Carlsruhe did you go to Baden baths ? — Yes. Did her Royal Highness sleep there? — Yes. Do you remember the situation of the beds? — No. Do you remeraber going to her Royal Highness's roora and seeing a sofa there ?— I don't know whether it was a sofa, but there were some chairs near each other, but it rather appeared to me it was a sofa. This question was repeated, but the sarae answer was given. When you went into the roora ^id you see tbe Princess ? — Yes. Was she alone, or vvas any person with her ? — Yes, Mr. Bergarai was there ; it was not very late, but twilight, between day and night. Was the Princess standing' or sitting ? — She vvas sitting. Where was Bergami? — He was sitting by her side. Did you observe the hand or the arm of Bergami where it was ?— Bergamj's hand was passed behind her Royal Highness. Describe how ? — It was passed round her body, ber 'waist. Where did his hand come ?— rHis hand carae out round ber waist, How was her Royal Highness silting — where was her head ? — Her head was leaning against Bergarai's arm. Did you go from Baden to Vienna ? — Yes. How long did you stay at Vienna? — Three or four days. Do you know whether her Royal Highness went to court at Vienna. — No. What do you mean — that you don't know, or that she did not go .'-^She did not go. You went from Vienna to Trieste ? — Yes. How did her Royal Highness travel from Vienna to Trieste ? — In a small, very low, open carriage. Who travelled with her in that carriage ? — Bergami. Any one else? — No one but Mr. Bergaini ; I saw no one else. Did she travel at the same time with her suite, or before ?— Her RoyaJ Highness arrived &t Trieste before her suite. You went from Trieste to Milan? — Yes. And to the Barona ? — Yes. Did her Royal Highness travel in the same way ?— Yes, I bplieve in the same carriage, because she always arrived before us. After your return where did Bergami dine ? — With her Royal Highness. Did Lewis Bergami dine too w ith her Royal Highness ? — Yes as far as \ recollect. You went from the Barona to Rome ? — Yes, Did JOU pass by Rimini? — Yes. How long did you stay there? — One or two nights, I don't recollect. Was her Royal Highness indisposed at Rimini ? — She was indispose4'. Did you attend her, or who attended ? — 1 attended one part of the timp. Do you know who attended the other part of the time? — I. don't recollect, Had her Royal Highness been indisposed before? — Yes. ^ Where? — At a small village, the name of which I don't know, Did you attend ?— No, •TRIAL OF The qUeen< 27A who remained with her ? — The Countess Oldi, I believe. How long did she remain in that place ? — Nearly one hour. Did you go into the room ? — Not at all. When you arrived at Rome, what house did you reside atP^At an inn. What was the name of the inn ? — The Royal Oak. Did you afterwards go to a house in the Ronconelli > — Yes. Doyou know the relative situation of the chambers of her Royal Highness and Bergami at Ronconelli ? — Yes. Describe their situation. Did they have any coraraiinication ? — They were near, and communicated with each other. Do you remember ever seeing Bergami in his bed-roora ? — Once. Where was her Royal Highness at that tirae ? — I don't know. Was Bergarai cpnfined by indisposition? — Yes. How long did that illness last? — A few days. Did you ever see her Royal Highness go into his room during that time ? -- Yes. Once, or more ? — More than once. Where did you go to from Ronconelli ? — To the Villa Grande. During any part of this journey to Rome, did you travel in the sarae cai- t'iage with ber Royal Highness ? — Yes. VVho who were in it besides the Princess and you ? — Mr. Bergarai. How did you sit in it; in what way? — Mr. Bergami was seated inthe middle between us. Did you take notice of their arms or hands, how they were .? — I do not re collect. Do you recollect any thing particular that -passed ? — I recollect no parti culars. Do you reraember at Villa Grande a bust taken of her Royal Highness? — Ves. By order of whora was it taken ? — I do not know. Was there a bust taken of any body else? — Also of Mr. Bergarai. Did her Royal Highness and Bergarai sit for these busts? — Yes. Do you know where they wero afterwards placed? — No. Was this at Villa Grande, or before you came there, or after you left it? — it was al Villa Grande. Do you know what vvas the situation of the Princess's and Bergami's rooms at Villa Grande ?— Yes. Please to describe it. — Mr. Bergami's roora was situate in an open gallery, and the entrance to her Royal Highness's apartments was in the sarae gallery. How far were they frora each other? — About 15 paces. Did you once see her Royal Highness corae out of her chamber after she was undressed ?-^I do not recollect. In what roora did she dress, or raake ber toilet ? — In her bed-room. Do you recollect ever seeing Bergami on those occasions ? — Yes, I savv him sometimes. Doyou recollect on any occasion some persons coming lo dinner before her Royal Highness was dressed ? — Yes. Into what roora did they go ?— Into the first roora. Where was Bergami then ? — In ber bed-room. Were you there also ? — Yes. Did she change ber dress before she went to the company^'— Yes. Entirely ? — I don't recollect. ^76 '^t^^A>I« OE THE; QUEEN, Where was Bergamo whije sjj^ was changing he^ <^^ss,?~^l'V|l. pfi the time he was in her room. i How long did you remain at the Villa Grande ? — Abpi^lj 2, uiqiiths. Where di4 you gofronj. that place ?— -To Scnigaglia. What was the name of the house you went to first? — T^^ Villa Csiprini. How long did you continue there j — I remained, pnly 2 months, Do vou know what was the situation of her Royal IJighuipss's rooijf, ^t,>yilla Caprini ? — Yes. Describe it.— Her Roya,! Hjghness had 3 ro.om.s, which led, to (he eatitjg- rbbm, or dining-room. Where were the rooms pf her suite? — The rooms of th§ gentlemiCn servants were in a separate wing pf the house. How did that wing cbmmunicate with the. rest of th^ hous^ '—By mean? of a kind bf two arches. Did her Royal Highness have any conversation with you about, t^cse rooms and apartments ? — I don't recollect. ^ How did persons in that wing get into the body of t^ie house? — The)r bad a staircase that went down into a yard, or court, and they went acfp.ss, 1,hat court ih order to get into the hpuse. Where was Bergami's bed-rppm ?— In a rpom near that of her ^oj.al High ness. - ' I ¦ ^Was there any communication bet'wecn them ? — Yes. Had her Royal Highness a snYall cabinet below ?— Yes. Was there any sofa in that cabinet? — Yes. Didyou ever see Bergami on that sofa ? — Yes. Have you ever seen him there when the Princess was?; — Yes. How was he ? Was he sitting on the sofa ? — He was lying down on the sofa. Where was her Royal Highness then ? What was she doing? — She was sitting on the edge of the sofa. , What was she doing? In what position was she? — I do not recollect what 'She was doing ; she was sitting on the side or edge pf the sofa. Did you ever see her Royal Highness in pantaloons? — ^Yes, at Pesaro. Was Bergami present at that time ?~ I saw him once, -s, • Tell us what he .said, or if he said any thing, or what passed between them ?— Bergami said, " Your Royal Highness looks better so." '' Tell the phrase he made use of, as far as you recollect? — Bergami turned round, looking at her Royal Highness, and said, " O, how pretty you are I I like ypu much better sp." (Several Peers here complained that they could hear neither the vvitness nor the interpreter. The last two questions and answers were read over'by Mr. Gurney.) Did you observe the bed of her Royal Highness at Villa Caprini ? — I made no observations. ' . ' Was it a small bed for one person, or a large bed fbr two persjctos ?— It ' was a large bed. At the time when you describe the Princess in pantaloons, what was the stale of her neck — breast ? — It was uncovered ; she was at her toilette. How far is Villa Caprini from Pesaro '—Two or three miles. Do you remember Bergami ever going from Villa Caprini to Pesaro ?— Yes, sometimes. Tell what.pass^dbptween hirn and the Princess ?-r-TThe same thing that I said passed at Messina. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 277 Describe it particularly ? — They took each other by the' hand, and the Princess said, '' Adieu, mon coeur ; adieu, mon clier ami .'" and Mr. Bergami said, " Adieu, au revoir .'" Did you observe Bergami do any thing more? — I do not recpUect that I observed any thing else. Was there a chest of money at Pesaro ? — Yes. Who had the key of it ? — I do not recollect. Did you ever see Bergami with the key? — Yes. At the time when her Royal Highness resided at Naples, had she any chaplain as a part of her suite ? — Prayers were said at her house every Sun-> day. Was it so at Villa Villani, Villa d'Este, and at the Barona ? — No. Did you ever see it so after you left Naples ? — Yes. Until vvhat time ? — Till we were at Genoa. Was it ever so at all after you quitted Genoa? — Never after. Did you ever see her Royal Highness go to church at Genoa f — Yes. What did you see her do there ? — I saw her once fall on her knees by Ber gami, (by his side.) Do you remember her saying any thing about masses? — Yes. Tell us what it was? — She told me she meant to have masses said for the soul of Mr. Bergami's father. (A laugh.) At the time you were first at the Villa d'Este, was her Royal Highness vi sited by the nobility in the neighbourhood ? — Sometimes. How was it at Villa Villani ? — Earl Grosvenor complained that neither the questions nor the answers could be heard by those noble Lords who were seated at a distance frora the bar. He said the Solicitor-General, in putting the questions, ought to address the House, and raise bis voice. How was it at the Villa Villani, before you went to Villa d'Este ? — They visited her sometiraes. ^ Did her Royal Highness ever say any thing to you about the Cassino at Milan ? — Yes. What did she .say ? — She said it had been put to the vote whether she should be adraitted at (or into) the Cassino, at Milan. , Any thing further ? - She said it had been negatived. Do you remember in the garden at Villa d'Este a chair upon wheels ? — Yes. H^ve you ever seen- Bergami and the Princess do any thing with that chair ? — Yes, I have seen thera play with that chair and push it forward. Who was in it ? — I do not recollect. Did you ever see them in the kitchen at Villa d'Este ? — Twice. What were they doing? — They were .standing in the kitchen. Was there any thing to eat there ? — There was something to eat, but I did not see them eat any thing. With respect to Naples, do you recollect the Princess's having gone to the opera one night ? — Yes. At what time did you dress her on the morning after the opera ? — I do not remember precisely ; sometime between ten and eleven o'clock. After she was dressed, where did you leave her ? — I remained in her room. Where did the Princess go ? — Into a small cabinet. Was that the small cabinet you before described ? — Yes. How long did the Princess remain in that cabinet —I do not precisely re collect. 40 278 TRIAL OF THE quee:n. Tel! us about what time '—Nearly an hour, or an hour and a half. Did you during that time -see Bergami ? — Np. Was the door of the cabinet open or closed ? — It was closed. Was the outer door of the room in which Bergami slept open or closed?- I always saw it shut when I was passing to my room. The Solicitor-General said, these were all the questions he had to ask the witness. The Earl of ^.zVerpoo/ hoped the coun.sel at the bar, considering the great length pf the exarainatipn, would have no objection to postpone the cross- examination till to-morrow. This be thought absolutely necessary, from the state in 'which the witness must be, as well as the interpreters &,nd even their Lordships after so long an unremitted examination. Mr. Brougham was about to speak, but was stopped by loud cries of (Order, order.) The Lord Chancellor thbught that the Queen's Attbrney-General would- not object to such a course, as he had complained on a former occasion of the great grievance of a cross-examination belngvinterrupted. If the suggestion of his noble friend were not adopted, that grievance would unavoidably occur again in this instance ; -for it vvas clear, that if th'e cross-examination were begun, it could not be finished to day. ' Mr. Brougham .said, he should certainly prefer the adjournment of the cross- exSminatibn till to-morrow ; because, though that was a highly inconvenient :our.se, he thought it would be still more dangerous to break off in the mid dle of the cross-examination. The house then adjourned at twenty minUtes before 4 o'clock.* * Thus hasHhis long and arduous examinaritin terminated without establishing, the main point — adultery. Many indiscretions, many lollies, and many Jevil-ies have- been elicited, but not one act of positiveicriminalitv. This is most singular : a lady is accused of constant habitual adultery with lier chamberlain for six years ; she is surrounded during that time by spies ; she can neither stand nor walk, nor he down nor get up, nor dress nor undress, nor sleep not wake, nor eat nor fast, nor sail nor ride— but slie is watched — watched by those whom she never suspected — by her own household ;— yet is it credible, under all this surveillance, when the confidence and carelessness which an uninterrupted intrigue mi^st naturally inspire in the course of years — is it credible, we ask, that not one act of adultery should have been Seen or testified to? How can this maivellous fact explained, unless we admit that, as adultery was never detected, it was really never committed ? This certainly .is the more nalTiral and safe conclusion, than to presume lo the guilt of her Royal Highness from the most plausible" ciicum- stafitial ev.idenca. That much familiarity subsisted may be allowed, but that is nothing. Had there been a criminal connexion it raust have been detected, for it is clear the Princess.took 110 pve'caufion, nor did the base vermin wilh sli^ was surrounded lose any opportunity. In this we argue on the supposition that Dumont and the rest of her tribe are eiiritled to credit. _This, however, we by no means believe; and we have no dOubt but in the cross-ex- aminalion of this witness, when tlie evidence for the defence is entered upon, the testimony of the whole fraternity will be completely exploded. FOURTEENTH DAY.— Friday, September 1. The House was called over, as usual, about ten o'clock ; after which the counsel, interpreters, &.c. were introduced. Cross-examinution of Madan/e Dumohf by Mr, Williams. You have already said that you have been thirteen months in England ? — Ycs. Have you been out of England during that time ?— No. TKIAL OF THE QUEEN. 279 Do you not understand English ? — I understand a little, but I ca«inot speak it with case. Have you had lessons in English ?. — Yes. How long have you been receiving lessons ? — Four or five months ; I don't recollect exactly. Do you raean that you have been taking lessons for fbur or five months up to the present time? — No; I have been the last two months without lessons. Have you not tried to speak English at all ? — I have sometimes. Did you understand the questions put to you yesterday before the interpre ter translated them ? — Yes; 1 can understand better than I can speak, because I cannot speak to make myself understood easily. Then, though you could not explain yourself, you understood the questions which were put to you yesterday, without the translation of the interpreter ? — I did not all of them ; but I understood one which the Solicitor-General put to me yesterday. Do you mean to represent that, out of the numerous questions which were put lo you yesterday, you understood only orte ? — I understood sorae, but not all. I did not understand so perfectly as to be able to answer. Say whether you understood most of the questions,. aye or no? — I under stood some of them. Were those which you understood the greater or the smaller nunqber ? — I understood some which were short- Since you have been in England have you always gone by the same name of Louisa Dumont ? — No, I had another name. If it be not giving you too much trouble, will ypu be so good as to tell me your other name? — I took the name of the place I come from, Colombia. Did you also take a title, that of Countess ? — No. Were you never called Countess ?—f was once so called. By once do you raean one lime ? — I mean one time. By once do you also mean by only one perspn ? — I pnly recpllect pne per- spn fo have called rae Countess. Did that person call you so only once, or frequently ? — I only heard it once. Where vvere yOu living when that person so addressed you?~In Frith- street. Do you raean in Frith-.street, Soho-square?— Yes. Before that tirae had you lived in Oxford-street ? — Yes- How long did you live there '—About three months, >as far as I can recol lect. I do not know exactly. While you lived there did nobody call you Countess ? — I do not recollect that any body called me so there. Will you swear that you were not called Cbuntess Colombia in the house in Oxfbrd-street ? — I will not swear that ; but I do nol recollect it. Will you swear that you did not pass in the house by the title of the Count ess ?— I cannot tell what Mr. Cross, who placed me in the house, called me ; 1 do not knpw by what title he announced me. Will you swear that while living in the house in Oxford-street, you were not called by the title of Countess, not behind your back, but in your pre sence ?— I will not swear ; but I do not recollact. Was it not something new to you to be called Countess ?^I do not remem ber being .so called in Oxfprd-strCet. I remember being called Ccuntess in Frith-street. The question was repeated, and the witness answerfed, " I was not so called." 280 TRIAL OF THE Q^EEN. Then you will swear that you were not, while living in Oxford-slreef, called Countess in your presence ? — I will not swear ; but I do not recollect. What name did you pass by before you went to live in Oxford-street ? — Colorabia. How long have you been called Colorabia ?— Since I arrived at Dover, in England. I wish to ask you whether, when you lived in Oxford-street, you did not answer to the title of Counless?— I do not recollect. \ Will you swear you did not ? — I will not swear ; but I do not recollect. Was it a matter of no singularity lo you the being called Countess ? Here there was a loud cry of " Order ! order .'" by some Peers. The Lord Cliancellor beXieved that some noble Lords thought the question unnecessary, as it had already been put several times. Mr. Williams wished humbly to submit (o their Lordships that the course of his cross-examination was perfectly regular. The question was one which in any court of justice he had a right to put, and to repeat in the manner he had done. He cbuld not help the question being put often. It was the fault of the answer not being satisfactory. The Lord Chancellor observed, that neither tbe counsel for the bill nor any noble Lord appeared to object to the question, and that therefore the counsel had a right to put it. (Cries of " Go on.") Mr. Williams thought it necessary, after such an interruption, to take a little time to consider. As you say you cannot recollect whether you were called Countess or notj I wish to ask you whether it was not a matter of novelty to you to be called Countess?— I -never was called so, except one time in Frith-street, as far as I recollect. i As I understood you, you said yesterday or the day before that you accom panied the Princess to Naples ?— Yes. Do you now recollect whether the Princess went to the opera on the first or the second night after her arrival at Naples ? — It was on the second night after her arrival she told me she was goirig lo the opera. Then you are certain that it was on the secpnd night after her arrival at Naples that she went to the opera ?— Yes. If I understood you rightly, there were two beds in the apartment of the Princess at Naples— a large one and a small one ? — Yes. The smaller one was the travelling bed of the Princess ? — As far as I recol lect, it was the travelling bed of her Royal Highness. If I comprehended you righdy, you said, the day before yesterday, that, upon the morning after the Princess had been at the opera, the large bed had the appearance of two persons having slept in it ? — I said, that the large bed lopked as if two persons had slept in it. - I beg to know, then, what you raeant by saying, in a previous part of your examination, that you had observed the large bed to have been occupied, but that you could say nothing more about it ? Mr. Gurney, who was desired lo refer'to his notes relative to the previous part of the evidence, read as follows : — Did you take notice of the Princess's travelling bed ? — I observed that nobody had slept in it. Did you observe what appearance the large bed bad?— I did. What observation did you make on the large bed? — I observed, that it had been occupied. State more particularly what was its condition ? — I cannot. ¦TRIAL OF. THE QUEEN. 281 " Was it much tumbled or deranged (—Not mudi." Mr. Williams then observed, that in the course of the examination, in about twenty minutes after, the vvitness had been asked olher -questions relative to the state of this bed. Mr. Gurney read whal had passed in this part of the examination — " Did you make any observation on the large bed ? had it the appearance of one or of more th.in one person having slept in it? — More than one person appeared to have slept in it." The .Jo/icJior-GfneraZ objected to this mode of pulling the question tothe witness. The connexion of the parts of the evidence should be read to her. The Lord-Chancellor. — Counsel have a right to stale what a witness has said on a former examination, and then ask a question upon it. But if there be any doubt as lo the words, it is then necessary to refer back to the notes of the evidence. Mr. Williams, — That is just what I have been doing. I now beg to ask why, if she had observed that the bed appeared to have been slept in by two persons, she should, in the first part of her examination, when asked to state what was its condition, have said she could not ? The Solicitor-General again interposed, and said this mode bf putting the question was not correct. The Lord Chancellor. — If there be any doubt about the words, let the notes of the short-hand writer be referred to. Mr. Gurney again read his notes as above. The translator interpreted the questions and answers, and it was explained to the witness that a perigd had intervened between the two parts of the examination. Mr. Williams then proceeded : — I now wish lo know, when you were first asked to state particularly the appearance of tbe large bed, whether you did not understand the question to relate to the number that appeared to have slept in it ?-i-I understopd, that I was tP say in what condition the bed was. Did you not consider, that you were to answer more particularly when you were asked whether the bed was much deranged? -I did not understand I was to explain particularly, but I could explain it at present. You have given .some account how some of the family slept at Naples^ I beg to know the different rooms, and where leronymus slept? — The door of his room was in the same corridor as the door of the room of her Royal Highness. Do you know whether Sir William Gell and Mr, Keppel Craven had ser^ vants sleeping in the house at Naples at this time ? — I saw their servants during that time, but I do not know whether they slept in the same house. Had Sir WiUiam Gell and Mr. Keppel Craven one or two servants at this tirae? — They had one servant each. Were they roen-servants ? — Yes. Do you raean to say, that you do not know at all where those servants slept at Naples?— I do not know where the rooms were in which ttey slept. I never heard it mentioned- '" You do not know where eilher of those men slept on any one night during your residence at Naples r —I will not Swear, but I do not recollect. Do you mean to swear that you do not recollect where Mr. Keppel Craven's servant slept any one night during your residence at Naples ? — At this moment I do not recollect at all. This you swear ,?~At this moment I do not recollect at all. 41 282 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Where did you sleep yourself at Naples?— In a little apartment above that of het Royal Highness. Did you sleep alone in that room? — We had two rooms; in one I slept, and Annette Triesson in the other. During the time you remained in the house, , did you sleep alone in that room ? — Yes. And this you will now swear.? — Yes, that I slept every night in my room alone. The whole night ?— Yes. Alone ? — Yes. Every night, and the whole of the night alone ? — Yes, I slept alone. If I recollect right, you said, you one night saw Bergami coming out of his room in a state of undress while you resided at Naples? — Yes. ' How soon after your arrival at Naples was this? — It is impossible for 'me to say. - You need not be particular as to a night or two? — I cannot say precisely. I do not desire you to say precisely ; say within a few nights, as near as' you can ? — We were four months at Naples, and I cannot recollect precisely. I do not ask you precisely, but tell me within a week, more or less ? — I cannot recollect. We were four months at Naples. Was it during the first month .?— / cannot recollect. Was it during the second or the third month ? — I again say, I cannot recol lect, it is so long since the circumstance took place. Was it towards the beginning or the erid of your residence at Naples ? — / do not recoiled. Then you have no memory at all as io tuhether it happened at the beginning, the middle, or the end qfyour residence o,t Naples ?* you have no notion of the time ? — I do not recollect at what period it happened. Then it was some one night or other while you were at Naples ? — Yes. I am to take it, then, it was some night or other while the Princess was at Naples? — Yes. You have only once lived in that city ?— Yes. I think you have said that you' once saw Bergami undressed ? — Yes. Now, pray tell me where you were standing, and in what position, when you saw him first? — I was standing at the doorof the'room which came out of the room of the Princess. Was that in the corridor ? — Yes. [Here it was remarked that the witness bad spoken of two corridors.] You spoke of a corridor into which the door of the Princess's apartment opened ?— Yes. I now speak of the same corridor. Where were you in that corridor ? — I was standing at the door which came upon this corridor from the rppm of the Princess. * Is this possible ? Is it possible that she should not recollect such a remarkable circum stance as seeing Bergami in his shirt with a light in his hand ? Is it possible that She shoiild not remember when she was thrown into a fright and ran away ? Is it possible, had this cir cumstance really occurred, and whicb naturally must have raade a deep impression on her mind, is it possible, we say, that she should not recollect whether it was at the beginning, th6 middle, or the end of the four months of the Princess's abode at Naples ? We think this is impossible. But be quiet, we shall shortly see Madame in a still worse scrape than this. There was an obvious utility in not naming any week oc day ; for, in that case, it might perhaps turn out that Bergami was some thirty miles off at the time, and then the Countess Colombia might incur the pains and penalties of penjury, ) TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 283 So I understand : very well. If I understand you, Bergami's room was at the other end of the corridor ; the other end, as applies to the room of the Princess ?— Not quite at the bottom.^ But nearly al the other end of that passage? — It was rather neiirer to the end of the pas.sage than on this side. (Referring to the plan before her.) Was there noi-a staircase between the door of the Princess and Bergami's room-door, by which you commonly went to your own roora ? — In this posi tion (referring lo the plan) was the door of the Princess. There was another door leading into her cabinet, in which was another door leading to the cor ridor, by which I went to ray apartment. Had you a light upon that occasion, when you saw Bergami passing ? — Ber gami bad a candle in his hand. Had you any light? — No ; because 1 was upon the point of going. Going where ? — To go out. I was still speaking to the Princess at ber door. You say " going ;'' going where ? — I was wailing for the Princess to give me • leave to go, as she did every night. What did you mean when you said, a minute ago, that you were going ?— Because the Princess was undressed, and I expected every moment permis sion from her to go. Where ? for I will know where ? — To withdraw to my own room. What, without a light ?— I had no light. If I understand your evidence, you have said you escaped through the apart ment of the Princess. The Solicitor-General. — Indeed she did not say any thing like it. ' Mr. Williams. — I put it as a question. Did you, in point of facial do not ask what you said before — did you escape through the apartraent of the Prin cess — ^yes pr no ? — I was there (describing,) and I escaped through this door. I did not traverse this part of the passage. Are you still speaking of the passage which went between the roora of the Princess and that of Bergami ? — Yes; the interior passage. When you traversed that part bf the passage which you have described, had you not to go towards Bergami ? — Do you mean in the interior passage ? In that one through which you were to make your escape ? — I was kere (describing.) I escaped through this door ; and Bergarai's door was here. The Earl of Diuderdale said a few words, which we could not catch. Mr. Williams. — When you made your escape from the place where you wee standing near the door of the Princes.?, had you not, in that escape, to go nearer to the place where Bergami himself was ? — I made some steps ; and I turned off Itere. I made some steps to the corridor, lo go to the door which led out. [The inability or the disinclination of the witness to answer this question distinctly, produced sorae confusion.] These steps took you nearer to the place where Bergami was ? I must have an answer, aye or no. The witness did not answer. Mr. Williams. — I subrait to your Lordships that I have a right to demand an answer to this question. The Lord-Chancellor. — No one prevents you, Mr. Williams. If the ques tion is not distinctly answered, you are entitled to put it again. The Earl of Lauderdale observed, that the descriptions of the witness (refer ring to the plan) were not visible at the upper end of the house. Tbe answer must be given in words. 284 TRIAL OF THE QUEp>*. The Earl of Winchilsea suggested that the witness might draw the thing upon a piece pf paper. (Loud cries of " No, no.") The Earl of Liverpool, —Let the witness describe in words, and thg inter preters will explain to the best of their ability. Mr. Pinario stated the desire of the House to the witness. Mr. Williams, — When you made your escape, as you have described several times, by means of the door, did you not, in so doing, get ntarer to Rer gami ?—Yt.s.* Did Bergami come forward, or did he run back, or what? — I saw Bergami over against me, coming towards me. , ' Then he kept coming nearer to you, to meet ybu ? — I do npt say that, be cause I went out precipitately. Then how do you know that he came towards you ? — Because I saw him coming wilh a direction towards me. ' About a fete or opera, I believe the King of Naplrfs had lent a palace or a house to the Princess ? — Yes. I am speaking now of that night, upon which you have described the Prin cess as acting the part of the Genius of History. 1 beg to know if the K^ing and Queen of Naples were there ? — 1 saw the King of Naples in the rooni, but not the Queen. I heard that she was, indisposed, and obliged to leave the room at an early hour. Were there not ladies of the Neapolitan court also present upon that occa sion ? — I .saw several ladies in the room, but I dp not knPW frprf what quarter they came — whence they came. Were there net alsp, pf the Neapolitan nobility and gentry, a cimsiderable niimber present?— I saw a great number of gentlemen and ladies in the ropm. ¦ iJow, I beg to know whether two other ladies did not sustain characfers at the same time when the Princess personated the Genius of Histqry ?-^When the Princess went down dressed in that character, I did not go dovyn too; but I remained above in my room, in the ante-chamber. So, then, you yourself did not see the representation of the pi?ce, whatever itwas, which got up? — I was not present during the representation of that piece. Did you see any lady dressed up to represent " Victory ?"t— I do not remem ber seeing, any other lady ; there were several costumes, but I do npt remem ber farther. Mr. Gastano said, the words of the witness were — ''Fsaw many costumes; but I do not remember seeing one of " Victory." I wish to know whether that costume, by whoever worn, was not used upon that occasion, when the Princess appeared as the Genius qf History ? — I saw different costumes during the same evening. Did you see one representing " Fame" upon that occasion ?-^I do not remember- I saw several costumes, but 1 raade no observation. * Thi&then puts an end tothe undrew ston/. If we can believe that Madanie Dm^rumt, when in a fright, lied to instead of from the object which caused her fright, then we niay beliieve she saw Bergaini in bis shirt, not otherwise. If any thiijg more was necessary to refute this part of her testimony we may remark the utter improbability that Bergami Would attempt to prpceed from his own room before he had ascertained the Princess had dismissed ber maid — nay, when one of ihem was standing talking at tbe door; and that he. should proceed along a passage, illuminated with a candle, sp tto,any person lurking in tli? cabinet or standing on the staircase that l^d into the corridor, might observe his progress. ' TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. S8.5 WeU, however that may be, when the Princess was dressed up in t^p character of the Genius of History, she appeared before all the persons, male and female, who were there ? The Solicitor-General.-^The witness has said that she did not go down stairs with the Princes.?, Mr. WiUiams. — But she may know the fact. I wish to know if the Princess went into that room where the Neapolitan company, male and female, was ? — I pnly saw the Princess gp dpwn. I saw np farther. I pnly saw her upon the top of the staircase by which she was going to descend. Was that towards the room in which the Neapolitan nobility and gentry were assembled ?— Yes. Have you any doubt that the Princess upon that occasion went to appear before the assembly ? — I believe the Princess was going to appear among them. I beg to know whether, when the Princess was dressed in the Turkish dress, other persons were dressed in that manner, so as to make up a group ? — I bnly saw the Princess in her apartment ; I did not go down into the room. I only entered the ball-room towards the end of the ball. Did you see leronymus ? — I did not see him. Did you see Sicard? — I neither saw Sicard nor leronimus; but they told me next day that they had been at the ball- The Solicitor-General thought it would be better, for the sake of regularity, to leave out what the witness had been told. Nor any other per.son in the .suite of the Princess ? — I saw no one ^f the suite of the Princess except towards morning, when I went Into the ball room, towards the end of the ball. I wish to know if, before the ball began, ybu did not see some of the suite of the Princess dressed as Turkish peasants, or as Turks jn some way or other ?«— I do not remeraber that I saw any body. I wish to call your attention to the journey you took by land to Jerusalem- I wish to know from you whether or no the Princess did not travel on horse back ?^-^Yes ; that is, on an ass. You travelled in some kind of carriage ? — Yes. With the Countess of Oldi ?— -Yes. Did you not travel after the Princess? — ^Sometiraes before, sometiraes after. Did you not on that journey, continue to attend on the Countess of Oldi? — I did not wait upon the Countess of Oldi. Did you not continue to be with her, whether serving or npt ? — I was always in the sarae palanquin with her. Did nPt ypur sister attend uppn the Princess during that journey ?-r-My sister was always on horseback near the Princess. That is to say, the Princess and your sisler travelled on horseback, you and fhe Countess of Oldi in a carriage, through all that journey ,? — Yes, I ask you again if your sister was not constantly near the Princess? — When we stopped, I myself was (aupres) near the Princess sometimes- Some difference here arose as to the proper translation of the word auprfs. A Peer said the word meant " wilh." The Solicitor-General repeated the word " with" to the interpreter. Mr. Denman desired the interpreter would not lake the meaning of ths witne*, frpm the Solicitor-General. . Tbe Soliaitor-General. — The suggestion was npt raine, it came froffl a noble Lord. i - Mr. Denman objected equally, although the suggestion did come from a 286 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. noble Lord. The interpreter was sworn, and such interference was most irregular. The word " aupres" was recorded. A Peer said that the words of the witness were not an answer to the question. Mr. Williams. — I ask if, upon that journey, you did not wait upon the Princess ?-^ Yes. Did not your sister also ? — Yes. During that journey did not the Princess rest by day, and travel by night? She rested during the day, and travelled in the night? — Yes. You have described your stopping at Aun ?— Yes. Do you, or do you not, mean to say that you undress the Princess at Aun ? — I remember that I was under the tent of the Princess ; but I do not remem ber if I undressed her or not. Do you mean to say tbat the Princess was undressed under the tent at Aun ? When I left the Princess she was in a white gown ; a white bed-gown. Do you mean to say the Princess was undressed at Aun ? — She had pulled off her upper habiliment, , Meaning the upper dress she had been travelling in ?— Yes ; a gown, which was open (a robe). Do you mean to say more than the outer garment, of whatever description ? —I do not remeraber if it was any thing more. Then the dress remained as it had done all night, while she was travelling, except the exterior dress, of whatever description ? — The Princess was in a white petticoat (jupe). Was the dress of the Princess in any way altered except by her having the exterior habiliment taken off? — I do not remember. Now, when that exterior habiliment was, in your presence, taken ofl^, did not the Princess put on a night-gown, bed-gown, or something of that descrip tion, in order to repose upon the sofa ? — When I left the Princess she was in a white petticoat ; I do not know what she did after I left her. Did thePrincess stop another night on ber journey to Jerusalem .' — Yes. Did you attend her upon that occasion? — the second time? — I helped tbe Princess to dress. I want to know from you now, whether on the second occasion, when the Princess stopped from travelling, she undressed ? Do you mean to say that ? — I did not see the Princess when we arrived. I only saw her towards even ing — when she ro-se in the evening. Upon that occasion, when you saw her in the evening, was she dressed or undressed ? — When I entered the room she was dressed in a white petticoat, as I have already said. Mr. Gastano. — The witness has this time used the word " robe," not "jupe." The witness corrected herself. It was a "jupe," the same "•jupe."* The Earl of Lauderdale said a few words ; but the noble Earl speakingjn a very low tone, and with his back to the bar, we did not arrive at his meaning. . The Earl of Liverpool desired that the word "jupe" might be recorded. When tbe Princess came to start, had she raore to do to her dress than to ^put on the exterior liabiliraent of which you have before spoken ? — I do not think she had any thing else to put on. • This is strange evidence, first to say the Princess was dressed in a " robt," thin only a "petticoat." The word "jupe" which is here rendered petticoat, does not express the kind of dress worn by her Royal Highness. The dress she then wore is the same as that'in which the lamented Princes? Charlotte is represented in the engraving from Mr. Dawes's wellJinown portrait. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 287 You have described your taking ship at Tunis to go to Jerusalem : is that so ? — Yes. You went on in the same vessel in which you had come ?— Yes. I believe the crew consisted of twenty-two or twenty-three persons?— I believe thereabouts. Then there were, besides the crew, some ten or a dozen persons in the suite of the Princess ?- — I believe nearly so. Do you reraember taking a harper on board at Tunis ? — ^Yes. He was a Jew, I believe ? — Yes. On that occasion we have been told that the cabin of the vessel, at one ex tremity, was occupied by the Princess and- the Countess of Oldi ? — There were two cabins : one for the Princess, and the other ^or the Countess of Oldi. Where did you sleep ? — In a cabin near the dining-room. Did it open into the dining-cabin ?— It opened into the passage. What passage ? — Into that passage that there was to go all along the vessel. ^ I beg to know where leronymus slept during that voyage ? — leronymus slept in another cabin in the same direction as miiie ; the last on that side, I suppose, when any of the crew slept, when they were at liberty, they went into the hold, did they not ? — I do not know where they went. Do you know where the harper lodged during the voyage — slept I raean ? — I do not remeraber exactly where he slept ; but it was, I think, I believe, near the place where we dined. I do not reraeraber exactly. At what distance was that from the place where you slept .?— It was at the olher end of the vessel. You, I suppose, slept in your own bed every night? Was it at the begin ning of tbe voyage or afterwards ? — During the whole voyage. When the Princess slept upon deck, I slept one night in her cabin, and one night in my own, alternately. Did you sleep in any other place besides the two you have mentioned ? — No. And the harper slept in another part of the ship ? — I do not know where he slept : but I believe he slept near the dining-table. Did you not say, a short time back, that he slept in a different part of the ship ? — I said it was at the extremity, at the end of the vessel : in a cabin which was below, not on deck. I do not mean the end of the vessel which was above, but below- Do you mean to swear that this Jew-harper slept there every night of the voyage ? From Tunis until you landed ? — I do not know where he slept every night. Will you swear that you do not know where he slept any one night ? — 1 remeraber that he slept there. I did not see him : I cannot say precisely. Then you do not know where he slept upon any given night, of yoiir own knowledge ? — No ; only from what I was told. Nor any part of any night? — No; not by my own knowledge- I understand you to have mentioned a place called Charnitz. From that place, if I understand you right, you have said Bergami went to get a pass port ? — I remember Bergami departed from that place, and I was told that it was to go to Inspruck foi" a passport. Was that in the winter season?— As far as I remember, it was: about March. ' Was there frost or snow upon the ground ? — There was, a good deal of snow upon the ground. Do you remember the inn ?— It was a small inn. 288 TitiAL OF THE QUEEN. If 1 understood you right, you were on at bed in the chamber of the Prin cess ?— Yes. _ . Had you taken off your fclothes }^-^Not entirely. Had you taken ofE any thing more than your gown ? — I do not perfectly remember, but I believe I had not. Was the Princess undressed ? — She was in bed, but I do- not recollect if she was undressed. Do yPu recollect the dress the Princess was in the habit pf wearing at that time? —Yes. Was it not a blue habit, trimmed with fur clpse up tothe neck, with a gOud deal pf fuf abput it ?— Yes ; there was a grectt deal of fur abput the neck, bpsom, and cuffs. Had npt the Princess, at the sarae time, a cap ? —When' she was travelling, she had a cap. A travelling-cap ? — Yes.- ' ' - Now, I want tp know from ybu whether the Princess had gone on the bed, or into the bed, wilh that dress' on her, in the middle of the preceding day ? —Yes. Do you mean to say, as lunderstand you, that, from the middle of the day, when she got into the bed, or on the bedi her Royal Highness had not un dressed herself at all ? — I saw her Royal Highness on the bed, during the day, in the same riding-habit. Did you see her RoyaJ Highness take it off at all while she remained at that time ?-T-I don't recollect seeing that. You were, you .say, in fhe same room wilh her, oh a bed ?,— Yes.* I believe you left that small inn vVhich you described early in the morning ? —Yes. If I understood you rightly, you entered inlo tbe service of the Princess in the year 1814? -Yes. And remained in it until the year I 8 17 ? — Yes. Until the month of November, or thereabouts, in that year? — Yes. Did you quit the Princess's service; of your own aCcbrd, or were you disv, charged ? ¦- 1 was discltarged. Were you not discharged for saying something which you afterVvards ad- ttdtted to be false .?^Yes ; in fact it was not true,\ Did you go into any other service after you- were discharged from that of the Princess, before you came to England?— No. Did not your money fail you before ybu came to England ? — 'No. Do you mean to say that you were not in want of money before you carae to England? — No, because I have money in Switzerland, and I might have got it if I had been in want bf it. Did you never sayihatyou Were gelling short of money ? I don't recollect having said that : I had funds in Switzerland, and could get the interest. Did you never represent that you failed to save money in the service of the Pririceiif—l don't recollect saying so. " How marvellously things are cleared up in the cross-examinatioH. Otie would haVe inferred, from the examination-in-chief, that the Princess and witness had gbne to bed entirely undressed for the liight, and that on Bergarai's return from Inipi-'tck, the maid was dismissed, and the Baron succeeded to her place. Now it appears that her Royal Highii^BS had merelj^ thrown herself down in her clollies, and no doubt wa? waiting to hear the result of Bergami's application for the passport. t Here is a pretty witness against her Majesty. She admiti herself that She had calum niated her Royal Highness ; yet this witness is to he listened to. , TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 289 1 ask, have you ever rejiresented it lo any body ? — I cannot swear it, but I do not recollect it. Will you swear that you have not?— I cannot swear it, but I do not r«cdl- lect it. I believe, you were appUed to for evidence, by some person or other, very soon after you were discharged from the service of the I'rincess? — Npt very soon. I don't knoiv what you call soon ; I say Within half a year ? — Not sb soon as six months. I had been out of her service nearly one year. It was nearly one year since I left her service. You say, that you were applied to, as I understood, to know what you had to say with respect to the Princess? Is not that so ? — One year after I had left her service. I \^ ish you to ansvver somewhat more explicitly. To the Interpreter. — Did the witness use the word " yes" at the com mencement of the last answer r The Interpreier. — 1 think .she did. Put the question .igain. Did or did not somebpdy apply tp you. In brder,,to know what you had to say respecting the Princess, relative to what 'She did? — One year after I left her service. Answer me, yes or no? — Ye.s, one year after. Now, do you mean to represent, that .n application was not made to you much earlier than a year after you were di,-;charged from the. Princess's ser vice ? — No. Is it or is it not true, that an application was made to you within half a tear of your quitting that service? — No application was raade to me earlier than ope year after I quitted the service. Will you swear it ? — Yes. Neither by means of a letter, by personal application, or otherwise,- in 'any manner? — No. As I know what it is about, may I be allowed to eufplain the matter ? i ' Mr. Williams, — First of all, as I submit to your Lordships, the witness must give an answer to my question, and then she may explain, if necessary. The Earl of Lauderdale directed the question to be read, which beiqg dt)ne, he observed, that it had been answered. The witness then proceeded to give her explanation, which sorae of their Lordships did not think necessary to be interpreted. Mr. Williams begged that it might be interpreted and taken down. Mr. Brougham, to the Interpreter. — Do you understand it? — Yes. Then translate it, and let it be taken down. The Interpreter. — The witness says, that, six months after she left the -Prin cess, she wrote to her sister to say, that an application had been made to her, but that communicatian was a dmible entendre between her and her sister. Here Mr. Brougham expressed a wish, that the Queen's interpreter should proceed with the examination. ' The Solicitor-General did not see any necessity for it. Mr. Brougliam.— I have a right to my own interpreter, Mr. Solicitor, and, I will have him. -The Lord Chancellor. — t consider it to be the duty of the interpreter not on - duty to attend to what the vvitness says ; and, if the other intetpreter states any thing inaccurately, he ought to mention -it. Mr.BrOugJiaitt, — The -other- interpreter c^n stanib'ghind^.and wJlInotbe in 42 290 TRIAL OF THE QUEEJT. a different situation now from that in which my interpreter was placed during the direct examination of every witness. The witness's explanation was then read, and, Mr. Williams professing that he did not understand what the latter part of it meant. The Interpreter observed, that the wiiness remarked, as she sat down, tbat that was all' she had to say. Examination resumed- — Have you never said, that the Princess was sur rounded with spies when she was in Italy ? — I don't recollect having said it. Djd witness ever say it or represent it in any manner ? — I do nol recollect. Will you swear that you have nol ? — I will not swear ; but I don't recollect. Have you a short memory — a treacherous memory ?— Nbt very shbrt ; but it is so long since the thing happened, that I have forgotten. Have you ever stated il in conversation? — I cannot recollect what I have said in conversation ; it is impossible. Either by your conversation, or in any other manner, have you represented what I have slated? — I recollect nothing at all about it. Will you swear ypu have not? — I will not swear ; but [ do not recpllect. Do you know Baron Ompteda? — Yes, I have known him. You have seen him ? — I have seen him. Have you spoken with hira ? — Not often. You have spoken wilh hira ? — Once, at Villa Villani. When he was on a visit with the Princess, I dare say ?^— When he vvas stay-- ing at the Villa Villani with the Princess, I believe. Was. he often there? — I recollect only having seen him that once for some days. What da you mean by some days.' — He remained sorae da)-s in the hou.se. ¦ I ask whether or not he has been on a visit to the Princess, while you were in her service, more than once ? —Yes. How many times have you known him on a visit to the Princess while you w'ere in her service ? — I have seen him in three different places. Upon one occasion, you say, his visit was for three or four days : were the other visits for so long a time ? — I think not. I only remember to have seen him. tbat once for some days. I understand you to say so ; then were the other visits for a day or two? For what time were they ?^ — They were of shorter duration. You cannot recollect precisely how long they were ? — I cannot say precisely. I have seen him, b.ut cannot speak to the time. On which occasion was it that a complaint vvas made by the Princess of his conduct at her house ? The .So/iciior-Genera/ objected lo tbe form of the question. Was there not a complaint made by the Princess relative to the conduct of Baron Ompteda on one of those occasions ? — Yes, there was. On which of those occasions was it ? — As far as I can recollect, it was when Baron Ompteda was at Villa Villani. Was the complaint about locks, or false keys ? f The Solicitor-General submitted tbat what the Princess said relative to the conduct of Baron Ompteda could not be received as evidence. The Ixird Chancellor doubted whether it was a proper form of question. 'MT.'Williams contended that, on cross-examination, he had a right tq-put, in the shape of an interrogatory, as he now did, a fact which he assumed for the. purpose F THE dUEEJT. admissibility as evidence^ wheth Py the ItordChancellar, — Hpw much of that paper did you, see? — A linei' and a half. By. ftlr. Widiams. — Did you not see higher up in the paper, and more thari' a line and a half before it was folded d6,wn ? Did you not see more of the letter; several lines?— I saw .something more, but I don't recollect how many lines, nor what it was, When 1 held tbe paper before you, was il near enough for you to .see the' ¦writing?^! do not Know whether it was near enough. I have seen the •lyrifing, but not distingui.sbed what the writing was. - ! I ask )pu this, yv-as it np^, when in my hand, near enough for you tb see the- wfritipg, and the character pf the writing?— I have merely seen the cha-' racter. ' ' Was it not near enough to you to see it? — It was near enough, because F have seer) it; but I. have only partly seen it. I have seen the hand-writing-' at a dis|:ance ; but was not able to distinguish it- " Why did you not complain, when I held it in my hand, that you could not see it?>^BecaUb3 the counsellor ga-ve it to me, addressing himself lo rae. -¦' Do you mean lo represent' that I did not hold it before yoii long enough to s^e the cha;"acter' before I handed il to the interpreter?—! cannot see thd eliaracter distinctly at that distance.' ' A Peer observed that the paper had been partly covered by two other papers," tq prevent the -wi.tpess seeing its contents. Mr. Brougham said his learned friend wished to know how she could speak to the writing, when she adrailted that she had not seen it distinctly. • ^he f.ard Chancellor.— If the counsel ask a question which they have af strict right to put, fha!t question cannot be opposed. If, on the other band, a qq^tian js pfppQunded vvhich they have no right to ask, that question ougBi tahis fibjected tc, en Ihe momerit. If a nobler lord wishes to make an bb- servation, and if the course tP be pjjrsued ^ c.9unsel at the bar is to explain to tliat noble Lord the reason of 3 particular proceeding, there will be no end TRIAL OF THE aUEElST- 29S to Hie Gxaminriion. I' apprehend, according to the usage of parliament, ii any noble Lord is desirous of making an observation, he ought in the first place, to move that counsel withdraw from the bar. Examination continued. — Do you now see distinctly the line and a half befoie yoii? — Yes. Do you see it ? — Yes, I do. Do you see it distinctly ? — Yes. Is it your hand-writing ? — It does nol seem exactly my writing. Do you believe it to be so, or not ? — I cannot tell whether it is my writing, because I do not know exactly the hand which I do write. (A laugh.) The question vvas repealed, and the witness answered — I cannot say. whether it is my writing, because it is not exactly as 1 write. A Peer directed the short-hand-writer to read the entry on his notes, re lative to the exhibition of the paper to the witness, which he did as follows ; — •' A paper was pre.sented to witness, folded up longwise, so as tp shpw the first half of every line." The Lord Chancellor said, thpse papers shpuld be marked. By Mr. Williams,— ! wish to know from you whether or not, sinceyou were discharged — The Earl of Donoughmore, having moved that counsel withdraw, proceedett to observe, that a part only of this paper was shown to the wilnes.i, andL therelbr.e she had not an opportunity of stating whether the whole of it was her writing or not. How then could they know, by marking the entire paper, which was the particular portion that she had referred to? She was called on to say, " Do you believe this to be your hand-writing, or db yoit not-'" He contended that there was a third mode of answering. She might .be asked, " Do you believe this to be your hand-writing, yes or no ?" But was she not entitled to give a third answer — namely, " I can form no beUef on the subject-'" Tbe Lard Chancellor said, wilh respect to marking the paper, the regular course would be, ibat the counsel should, by some mark of his own, enable himself to identify it generally ; and where particular parts had been pointe.d put to the witness, that line, or line and a halfj should be distinguished by his initials, that, if the papers v;eie. hereafter produced in evidence, they might be properly authenticated. If the letters or papers were never here after produced in evidence, it would be matler for grave observation. Earl Grey did not think it was necessary to mark the paper in this manner, since it was stated, on their Lordships' minutes, that the letter exhibited lo the witness was doubled down lengthwise, so as lo show the first half qf every line. The short-hand writer again read the entry relative to the exhibition of the of the letter. The Lord Chancellor said he had overlooked that circumstance. Counsel were then called in. [A short pause took place while the witness retired from the bar ; on her, return, the cross-examination was resumed by Mr. Williams,'] Was it not in the month of November, 1817, that you quilted the service of the'Princess ? — Yes. Of course, at tbat time, you knew all respecting the Queen winch you have ^,qsed to far two days back ? — ^^(No answer was returned). Did you nof, at that time, kuow all that you have been deposing to here? — Yes. Since the time you have quilted, or were discharged frora, the service of fg^ TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. the Princess, have ybu never described the character of the Princess as very- excellent? — I do not recollect. (,lene me rappellepas.) Will you swear that you never said to your sister, you would give half your life, if ste could read your heart, you would give half your lite for her ? — I may have said that, but I do not recoiled, (fe neme rappelle pas.) Do you not recollect having said, or represented, that the Qiveen, if .she could read your heart, would be convinced of the infinite respect ^ tlie unlimited attachment, and iheperfect qfiction, you entatained for her ? — [This question was read by Mr. Gurney, and put by the interpreter in de- , tached portions.) I recollect to have written several tiraes to my sister, but I do not recollect the contents. Tliat is not an answer: did you never write to your si.ster to that efTect, without pledging yourself lo the precise words? — I have written to ray sister. Will you swear that you never wrote to your sister to that efliect?— I wrote ence on a journey to Count ^chiavini. The question I put is, did you write to your sister to the effect I have men tioned ^ — I wrote several tiraes to my sister. Did you never write to your sister to the effect I have described, since you were discharged ? — I have ivritten several times to my sister, and I know I have spbken bf her Royal Highness, but I do not recollect the expressions. \ Did you write to the same effect or sense ? — it was in the same sense. You wrote in the same meaning ? — Yes, the same meaning. The expressions I have used may have been those you wrote ? — If I have written expressions for that ? Noi lolhatefi'ect? .! The Lord Cliancellor. — Words of ihe same sense .''—-Yes, Mr. Williams, — Did you write to your sister in the words I now u.sc, but the effect or sense you are to attend to: Did you say, " that if the Princess could feat read my- health she would then be convinced of the infinite respect, the un limited aUuchment, and the perfect affedion, I always entertained for h-er august pers-tm ?"^I have written to my sister, but I cannot exactly recollect the ex.- pressions ; it was in that sense. Will you swear that you did not use the words, " O God, if she could but read my heart?" — I may have used the expressions ; but at that tirae I was much attached to her Royal Highness. ' , It vvas some time after you were discharged ? — It was npt very long. Have you nol written, that in the circles in which you had been you spoke of her great qualities, her rare ialent.i, her mildness, patience, charities, and, in !*hort, all the perfections she possessed in so eminent a degree? — I do not re- eoJ'lect (Je ne me rappelle pas]) the use of those expressions ; I .spoke of the manner in which she conducted herself towards me- ' Have you not used the very expressions which the interpreter has this mo ment put 10 you ? — Je ne me rappelle pas — I do not recollect the expressions; but I wrote in the same se?ise. You will not swear, that you did not u.se the very eipressions ?— I will not swear that I made use qf the expressions, pr that I did not make use of them. Ypu swear that you used words in that sense? — Yes. • Did you write words to this effect: — " Hovv often have I seen my hearers affected, and heard them say, that the world was unjust io cause so much unhuppi- ness to one who deserved it so little f — fe ne me rappelle pas — I dqn't recollect to have used the expressions. tWIAL OF THE QUEEN. 295 And these words — " And one who is so worthy qf being happy f" — Jenc mt rappelle pas — I do not remember the expressions. Did you use expressions to that effect? — I have wiiiten to my sister several times to that effect — in that sense. Will you swear that you did not use the very werds? — I cannot recollect whether I used the words exactly. ¦i'ou will not swear that you have not used them.' — No, nor that I have; but I have used words pf that sense. Vou kept a journal ? — For what? You kept a journal generally? — Yes. While you were in the service of the Princess ? — Yes. Did you write, " You cannpt think what npise my little journal has raadei^' — I wrote several times to my sister, but I cannot recollect what. Did vou use the words the interpreter has stated, or words to that effect?—- Je ne me rappelle pas. Will you swear that you did not use' the words ? — I will not swear I did not. Did you writo, " It (the journal) has been snatched (arrache), if I may u«e the expression?" — -lene me rappelle pas— I cannot recpllect exactly the ex pression to my sisler. Did you write, " Every one reads it; Madame Paulizzi asked lo take it lt» Lausanne fbr sorae English there who wished to see it immediately." Did >ou use these expressions to vour sisler? — I tell you, it is impossible forme lo recollect what I have written to my sister. Didyou write to that effect? — J-ene puis pas me rappeller — (I cannot re collect.) Will you swear that you did not write to that effect oi the journal P — I cannot swear to that of which I am not sure- Who is Madame Paulizzi? — A Swiss lady. You know her? — Yes. Did you show the journal to her ? — I do not recollect whether it was befbi;e or after my return. I did not ask you that. Has she seen it?— She has seen it; but I cannot recollect whether it was before or after 1 relumed. Did you write, " I have been delighted at it," meaning so many seeing the journal, " for you knpw I say in it a great deal pf the best and most amiaMe Princess inthe world'!" The Interpreter, in putting this questipn, used the word ma'iiresse (mistress) • for Princes.s, Mr. Brougham. — The wprd maitresse is not the translation. ¦ No reason has been assigned why the word Princess should not be used. Mr. Williams read further as expressions used by-tlie wiiness in writing to her sisler of the journal she had written — " I say in it a great deal of ihe best andmost amiable Princess in the world;, all the traits of .sensibility and generosity she has shown, the manner in which .she has been received, appla'ided, and cherished in all the places where we have visited." Did you write to that effect?-:- 1, told you, that I vVrote very often to ray sister, and spoke of her Royal Highness. Aye, and to that effect ? - Je ne me rappelle pas — I do not recollect whether ' I wrote in the sense of the last expressions. Will you swear that you did not Write to that effect?— I will not swear that I did not use the expressions, because I do not recollect. Again, " You know when the Princess is the subject 1 am not barren, conse- qu^tly my journals at Venice arc full of the effusions of my heart •,\ my great S96 TRIAL' OF THE ^UEEN. desire^ways was, that -the Princess-should really appear what site is, and tluil full justice should be rendered to her." Did you use these words? — Je ne me 'rappellepas. Did you use words to that effect? — Always the same thing ; I have written ¦tfreijuently to my siste^r a great d^al about the Princess, as I was much attached to her at that time, but I do not recollect the' expressions. ; - ,Will you swear that.yfiu have not used the expressions ? — I will not swear, because I am not sure. The Earl of Liverpool. — Read the whole of tbat question and answer. Mr. Gurney read the question. — Did you vvrite to your sister — " You know- when the Princess is the subject I am not barren, consequently my journals at Venjceare full cf the efFusipns of rayheirt; my "great desire always was, that tiie Princess i?hoiuld- really appear what she is, and tlmt full justice should be .rendered to her?" The answer of the witness — " Always the same thing; \' have written frequently to my sister a great deal about the Princess, as Ivvas inudh attached to l\er at that'time, but I do not recx)Uect the expressions. I wJH not swear I have nbt Used the expressionsj-becanse I am nbt sure of it.'' .Mr- Williams proceeded. Will you swear that you have not used the expressions?— I will not swear, because I am not sure'of it. Have you any doubt of using those words ? — Je ne me rappelle pOs.* 'I ,'wrpte frequently to my sister- I do not recollect the expressions. Have you not represented "that your money began to fall s-hortf — 1 knew no thing of that, but I never wanted money. Hav^e you not 'represented to your sister that you were getting short of mo-' 'rey; — that yo\x were getting poor ? — 'I do not know whether I said it, but ^-that never happened to me. Have you never represented to your sister that she should economise as much as possible ? — Yes. "Aiid retrench every superfluity .'— :! did represent that she ought to eco- ¦noraise, as she had no fortune at home. .. Did'you write to your sister - " Did you know the regret I feel at not bavin done so ?" — I don't recollect whether I wrote so, but I never wanted money. Did you write — " I do not think I was guilty of extravagance, but I have not deprived myself of many things which were almost useless?" — How do you wish me to recollect ichat I have written ? ¦ JMr. Williams. — Take her answer. Lord Whitworth (we believe) wished the answer to be repeated in the lan-i -.gli^ge of the witness. The interpreter repealed them. Lord Whitxiiorili,—No, let the witness repeat her answer. The witness. X Jftteme-rUppdlepas-'iiai Nvn hi Hc'ordo -will live and die tSgelher. The evidence the advantage af the pspiipadie^«i,ft.tp the denial of hawmg «o wjitten.-whieh wentiiiiiirther to dsstr^y U^e ^xim^l.ef^dit&f ^& witness, as ig/sii as the tnlt^ of the particular evidence given by that vvitness. In matter «f evidence hie 43 S98 TBIAJL OF THE QUEEK. would not quote tkeir Lord.¦^ll^ps. T'.e rule in question vyas one of pia^tice rather iban of wriHen a.uihoiityj if there bad been any authority in the books respecting it, that authority should have been produced. . But in the absence of all recorded referci^ce or citation on ihe subject^ he should assume that none was to be foun.l. ff llie rujc were as the vitorney- General represented it, what musi be its imraedti(te,and i4cc!esb.ary conse^encp ? The only priu^ipie on which tiie Jeiter was at all admiued v\'.a«, ihii|t ;i(t might show a contradiction to the evidence on the examjflatio^ ilji chi^f. Tbjfi, W:*» . the founda'tioiB of its aded it, iis he had sUffbicd frbm ft. The writing was inirodilc^ed for th'e sole pur pose bf pointing out a to'htradiiition. Why wero they to Wait till a future stage of this proceeding for fhfe di^cov^ry of fScts which might bd proved irt'ilnediate- iy? \W-ca'W!in'4f Jt?fJ rib' knbwled^e of the existence of a' \*ritten doCumignt, cdntradicthffg' Ms' i^iniany m'ost ma- 44 306 'TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. I terially, iii what situation would the witness be placed i Non constat that, after tne cross-examination had been concluded, the witness might not be^ able to explain tbe discrepancy, and reconcile the apparent opposition. He pould npt perhaps do so without the refreshment of his memory, and that refreshment would ^rise out of the written document, whether a letter or otherwise in the^possession of the counsel. The commpu sense of the thing was entirely en the side of her Majesty, and against putting and reading the whple letter. All a man's writings were evidence agai;ist himself in any course instituted, by him, or where he was defendant: but the case of ,a witness vvas different, and this was the first time it had been ever contended that all a witness had written might be produced in opposition to his testimony. If their Lprdships should decide contrary to what he had now argued, they might put a nevy rule round the necks of the Queen's counsel, but their reason would remain their own. Tbe Attorney-General said, that the whole point lay in a very narrow com pass. Unquestionably the letters of a party in a cause were evidence against him ;. but no declaration iu writing by a witness could be received in evidence to contradict him without being read. In cross-examination all that was wanted vyas the negative by the witness, and then the contradiction must- be supplied : but it must be'supglied in the regular way, and according to esta blished r^!e. 'Where a witness was contradicted by parole, the witness to contradict him must be produced and cross-examined by the adverse parly, and the same rule applied to documentary evidence,; that also must be pro duced and read, that the nature of its contents might be properly judged of, 'This vvas the fallacy of the argument on ihe other side ; for if they ask ques^* tions regarding letters, those letters must be produced at the proper period. In the <;ase before Baron Wood, it was merely decided, that matter collateral to the issue could not be introduced ; but here the letter itself vyas put into the hands of the witness, and the consequence was, that if it were to answer any purpose, it must be read in due course. It had been contended, that this was doing injustice to the witness, who ought lo be allowed an opportur nity of explanation ; but if that were required, it could be afforded at any time by recalling the witness. The writlen declaratipn of a witness, like every p^her written paper, must speak for itself : no examination of its contents was ever allowed by parole, and if he did not pile authorities' upon this point, it was because the rule vvas tpo well known, and top often acted upon to need such support. Lord Erskine in a low tone of vpice observed, that if question? founded on the l^tteis were put to the witness, no further use could be made of them then, but they must be produced in the prpper stage of the case hereafter, ' He begged leave to say, however, that whatever raight be the rules of courts of law where the case of the accused followed iraraediately that, of the accuser, some difference might here be allowed, because one anomaly of this proceeding was that an interval raust be allowed for the preparation of the defence. The prqper course seemed iiow to be that the cqntradiclipn in the letter should be staled to the witness, aiid that she should th?n be required to give her explanation or recoticilement of it, the house being the judge hojv far that purpose had been accomplished. Either this must be done, or ihe coun sel for the Queen would be deprived of making the cross-examination as to this point, and what it produced, a part of their case. The Lord Chancellor then drew up two points for the opinion of the judges': ¦—1. Whether, when the witness is under examinatioq, and uppn the produc- TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 307 tion of a letter to the witness, the witness admits that he wrote that letter, he could be examined in the courts below as to whether he did or did not in such letter make statements as were charged against h'm by the counsel. 2. Whether such statements are or are not contained therein, and in what stage of the proceeding, according to tbe practice of the courts below, such letter could be required by counsel to be read or be permitted by the courts below to be read. The judges withdrew for about live minutes, and, on their return, Lord^ Chief Justice Abbot delivered their opinion, that counsel cannot by questions addressed to the vvitness inquire whether certain statements are contained in a letter, but the letter itself must be read as the evidence to manifest that such statements are or are not contained in it. This opinion was founded upona rule of evidence as old as any part of common law. On the latter question the judges decided, that, according to the ordinary rule of proceeding in courts below, the letter was to be read as the evidence of the cross-examining coun sel, lo be offered in his turn after the opening of his case ; but if the cross- examining counsel suggests that he wishes the letter to be read immediately, that he might put questions upon it that cpuld not be propounded before it was read, it, then became an excepted case, and, for the more convenient ad ministration of justice, the letter is permitted to be read with all the conse quences of its being considered part of the evidence of the party producing the letter. i Counsel again appearing at the bar, the Lord Chancellor informed them of the decision to which the House had come, founded on the opinion of the judges. Mr. Brougham, before he made his election whether he would wish the let ters read now or at a future stage, rerpinded the house of a precedent in the Duchess of Kingston's case, in the state trials, where Judith Phillips had been called by Mr. Mansfield, counsel for the defendant, in order to enable him to read a letter, which letter was read as part of the cross-examination, aqd not as part of the defendant's evidence, whose case was not opened until afterwards. X)n this authority he should have submitted that he might read the letters of the witness Dumont as part of her cross-examination. - The Lord Chancellor told the counsel for the Queen, that they must make their choice whether they would have them read now, for th^greater conve nience of cross-examination, or would produce thera in a subsequent stage of the business. In both cases they raust be considered as'the evidence for and of the Queen, He would look mpre particularly at the Duchess pf Kingston's case. ' Mr. Brougham added, that Mr. Williams had one or two other questions to put to the witness before he examined her on the contents of the letters. M. Dumont was then recalled, and her examination continued. You have said that you have been thirteen months in England ? — Yes. Any more than that.'— 1 came last year, in July. Who came with you? — One of my sisters, a friend, Mr. Cross, and Sacchini. Then the retinue consisted of two females and two males ? — We travelled iu - different carriages. But you travelled at the same time? — Yes. From 'Vienna, or where ?—r-From Switzerland. You have been at Vienna, have yoii not? — I have not been at Vienna ex cepting with her Royal Higbness. ' ILive you been at Milan s>incei — Yes, once. 308 TRiAi, ot^ ¥tiE QiJfiiNi Wet^ you examined there .?^i^Yes. How m-any examined you ? Was Vilinarcati, the ebfliislft'HbVv rfnte ?i-^Yes,' Vitoarcati, and three other gfentlemeh. Ko other laivyer ?— There was the a:dvoC'dtei Vilihaifta:ti, three Other -gfeiiftlS-' men, and those who wrote : I do not kno' as he was -not quite sure that the translation was accurate, since very little lime had been given to his interpreter to com pare the original with the translation, that an opportunity should hereafter bjB afforded, to enable bim to revise the translation by the original. The Lord ChanceUor said, it was very reasonable, if the interpretjer had not^had an opportunity, quietly, of comparingthe ti-anslation with.tbe original, -that such an opportunity should be allowed. He thought, when the other interpreter was reading the second French letter, an opportunity would occur for making an accurate comparison. The interpreter then read the translation of the first letter, which was as follows:— ! " Dear and good Mariette, CalOmlier, Sth Feb, ,1818. " ^Although you have not said ifour words in your: last letter, yet I dove you too well not to pardon you for it ; and it is with real pleasure that. I replj to you. I hope, my dear sisler, you are perfectly happy; but I ought not to doubt it, so well asl know the extreme goodness of her Royal Highness, and of all those vvith whora you have any thing to do. Endeavour .always tode- serve such kindness, by continuing the sarae -way of life which has procured it for you, that experience may not be useless to you. Keep always before your eyes the trouble which arises frora rashness and inconsistency; yinu have .lately had sufhcient proofs of that. " You will, no doubt, be verydesirous ofknowing what is ray situation lin our little country ; I assure you, my dear, I have been received in such a man ner as you would have no idea of. I have been every where sought after, and receiv«i with the greatest cordiality, at Lausanne, , at Morger, and at jCas- sonay. Lpassed a whole month at the last town, where every possible amuse- •ment vyas procured for rae. You know how fond I -was of sledge-riding; well, every.dayiwe.made a party for it. At the beginning of the new year we h£^ a d.^lightfuJ_maske-dJ)all ; Jast:Hceek-tw-0. more,. theJbest that have, been seep_in this tovvn,..'".nd-a nijtnberof other evening parties given by a, friend of j^i^e s in short* every day brought some new invitatipn. Conceive to yourself hovs«, rin 316 TlilAL OF THE QUEEN. the midst of" all these numberless pleasures, I was sad and silent; everyone quizzed me on my indifference ; I, who used to be so gay before ray departure. I was not insensible of ray dulness, but, spite of all ray etideavours, could not get the better of it. " Can you not, ray dear, divine the cause of all ray sadness ? Alas ! was it not the regret of having quitted her Royal Highness, and of knowing that she suspected my character, and taxed me with ingratitude? Oh, God! / would surrender half my If e, could she but read by /leart ; she would then be con vinced of the INFINITE RESPECT, THE UNLIMITED ATTACHMENT, and thp PERFECT AFFECTION, I liavc olways entertained for her august person. " I should have wished, my dear Mariette, to have written to the Count, to thank hira for the kindness he has shown me, but I was afraid to trouble him ; telfbim, one line, if he would but have the goodness to write to rae, would afford me a little tranquillity, since it would make me hope for pardon. " I was afraid hei- Royal Highness would be ihspleased at the course I have taken in my journey. Judge, then, of my happiness when I learned that she was net at all angry at it; but on the contrary, gave rae leave to take it. In truth, this pretence has been very useful to rae; for you are sufiSciently acquainted with the world to suspect that I have been assailed with questions, particularly by geeat folks — for I am not vain enough to think that I have been sought after only on account of my beautiful eyes — and that a little' curiosity has had no part in the desire to see rae. Ah ! why was not her Royal Highness at ray side ? She would then have found if I were un grateful, " How often, in a numerous circle, have I with enthusiasm enumerated lier greaf qualities, her rare talents, her mildness, lier patience, her charity ; in short, all the perfections which she possesses in so eminent a degree ! Hbjv often have I seen my hearers affected, and heard them exclaim, that the world is unjust, to cause so much unhappincss to one who deserves it so little, and who is so worthy of being happy 1 " You cannot think, Mariette, what a noise my litlle journal has made ; it has been, if I may use the expression, snatched at. Every one has read it, - begged me to let her carry it to Lausanne : all the English who were there wanted to see it iraraediately. I have been delighted at it, for you know I say in it a great deal of the best and most amiable Princess in the world; I relate in detail all the traits of sensibility and of generosity which she has shown; the raanner in which she was received, applauded, cherished, in all the places we have visited. " You know that where the Princess is my subject I am not barren ; con sequently my journal is embellished with the effusion of ray heart, ray greatest desire having always been that the Princess should appear to be what she really is, and that full justice should be rendered to her. I assure you, that, although distant, it is not less ray desire, and that I shall always endeavour with zeal t'hat such may be the case, and as far as my poor capacity will allow. You may judge I shall not make a merit of this, since she wfTl be ignorant of it, and even suspects me of ingratitude; but it will be only to content my heart, which would find a sweet satisfaction in this charming success. " But I had almost forgotten to confide to you a thing which will surprise you as much as it has rae. The 24ith of last month* I was taking some refresh- • In her cross-examination yesterday she denied having been solicited to give information iia the conduct of the Princess till a year after her discharge from the s«Tvi«;e of her Royal TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. - 317 ment at my aviit Clara's, when I was informed an unknown person desired t) deliver me a letter, and that he would trust it to no one else. 1 went down stairs and desired him to come up into my room ; judge of my astonishment when I broke the seal : a proposal leas made to me to set off' for London, under the PRETENCE of a governess. I was promised high protection and a brilliant fortune in a short time. The letter was without signature, but, to assure mc of the truth of it, I was informeil I might draw on a banker for as much money as I wished. Can you conceive any thing so singular? Some lines, escaped front the pen of the writer, discovered to me the cheat, and I did not hesitate to reply in such terms as must have convinced him 1 was not quite a dupe. Notwithstandin^all myefforts, I could draw no eclairCissement from the bearer; he acted with the greatest mystery, " You see, my dear, wilh vvhat promptitude the enemies of our generous bene factress nhoays act. There must be spies continually about her ; for no sooner had I left Pesaro than it vvas known, with all its circumstances, in the capital of Europe . They thought to find in me a person revengeful and ambitious ; but, thank God, I am exempt from both those failings, and money acquired at the expense of repose and duty will never tempt me, though I should be at the last extremity. The Almighty abandons no one, much less those who act agreeably to him. ,i good reputation i-i better than a go/den girdle. " Since I have introduced the subject of money, my deal sister, I must give you some advice. Economise as much as possible, rclrench every super fluity : did you bul know the pain I feel in not having done so ! 1 do nol think I ever was guilty of extravagance, but I have not deprived mjself of many things which were almost useless. You know tbat every one here, as else where, fancies the Princess of Wales throws her money out of the window, and supposes me possessed of a large fortune : from a species of self-love, and to prove still more her generosity, I do not try to undeceive any one ; conse quently, though I have great need of money, I don't dare to ask my guardian for any. I know how lo be moderate, and am at no expense. I have often reflecied, that if I had always acted in the same way, 1 should not be in the situation in which I am. "" Every one should economise as much as possible ; one can gain by no other means. Profit by the lesson I have just given you ; be assured it will be salutary to you, for I speak from experience. M. has not sent the packet ; I wrote to him at Milan and at Paris. 1 expect his answer one of these days-. If it should bo lost, it will be very disagreeable, as the cloth cost a great deal. If I had known, it should not have been purchased, as my mother had a good spencer, and raight very well have done without it. I regret the velvet very much, as I want it for my hat ; besides, we did not get that either for nothing ; and three louis are well worth lamenting, without reckoning the olher baubles. Money will not come by whistling for it. A sous here and a sous there soon make a livre, and 24 livres make a NapolePii. You see I am become an adept in arithmetic. I will answer for it, however, that Mr. will make all good, if be has lost any thing. I shall show him Highness. It appears from this that /the proposal ef " high protectioii" and " a brilliant fortune" was made within , tferee instead of twelve moriths from the period of her discharge: she did not leave the service of the Queen till November, 1817, and she received the Icuer , from the urlknilum person on the 24lh January following. Besides convicting Madrfme Dummit of a falsehood, it also sho-.\5, as she observes below, with what promptitude the enemiis i / her generous benefactress always acted. 46 , 318 TRIAL OK THE QUEEN. no favour, and have written to him in such a manner as suiGcietitly shows I am not very well satisfied with his negligence. " But, my dear Mariette, I perceive I have almost finished my letter with out speaking of our dear parents. Our gopd mpther is tplerably well, though her asthma, and complaint in her stomach, torment her sometimes, but no thing compared to vyhat she has suffered this summer ; my father is very well; Henrietta is always charming. I give her every day lessons in writing and reading. She sews very well and repassie as well ; she has already vyorked several frills for me, and some gowns, with wbich I am very well satisfied. Her desire of travelling is the same ; pray try to get her a situation ; I am convinced she will give you np cause tp regret it. She is much altered fer the better ; she is gay, and always in gPod humbur, raild, pbliging, in short, of a character tP raake herself belpved wherever she goes; for she has an excellent heart, and knows how to be contented in all situations. Margaret is entirely amiable, of a pretty figure, and so lively, that she makes one half dead with laughing. Louisa is very genteel. I assure you, dear Mariette, they are all changed very much for the better, and I am quite contented with them. " I have, been for this month past in my favourite chamber at Colombier, where some repairs have been done ; for example, a good chimney, and a small cabinet, wherein I sleep. I raake little excursions often in our envi rons 4 and frequently receive visits, vvhich afford rae amuseraent. " I think I hear you saj', ' Well, dear Louisa, what do you mean to do ? Won't you marry? What does — —do?' I will tell you word for word, I every day feel more and more repugnance to marriage : has done all in his power to induce me to accept a heart, which, he says, he has preserved for me these seven years ; what beroical constancy, and litlle worth ihe age in which we live ! I shall not, however, be dazzled by it; and, although he be rich, charming, and amiable, I do not wish to retract the refusal I gave him four years ago. " If this amuse you, I will tell you of several other lovers, not less desir able than he. I am very foolish,- perhaps, to refuse thera ; for they are infinitely better than I am — perhaps 1 may one day repent it. You know the proverb, ' He who will not,' &c. But I cannot do otherwise. Recent events have created in me a sort of antipathy to men ; I can have no connexion, no communication with any of them. I love and cherish sweeU liberty alone, and wish to preserve it as long as I can. " Dear Mariette, I conjure you imitate ray example, and never think of marrying. My mother and I forbid it, as long as her Royal Highness shall wish to keep you in her service. You can have no greater happiness. It is impossible ! Beware of forming any attachment — you are too young — re main free. Be assured you will be a thousand tiraes raore happy. " I do not recommend prudence to you, because I know you too well to distrust you ; but, although it may be said of rae that I would die rather than abandon it for an instant, and de^yiate frora the strict path of virtue, the most precious, good we possess, yet I have kno-.vn some persons suspect my conduct. But I have God and^ray own conscience for witnesses. Are they not sufficient for ray peace ? No one can deprive one of that. No, I have nothing to reproach myself wilh on that head, and you know, therefore, I can give you such advice as you shouldToUow, especially as it is also that of our tnothef. t TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 319 " Dear sister, if you dare place me at the feet of her Royal High new;, be seeching her to accept my humble respects; do not fail, I entreat you, when she speaks of me, to endeavour to convince her my repentance' is still the same; that I conjure her to restore me to her favour. Tell me if her Royal Ilighness is still so enraged against mc, and if there is not any appearance Of a pardon; but tell rae always the trulh- Try also to persuade her Royal Highness that I am and alieays shall be so entirely devoted io her, that no sacri- • fice I could raake fbr her would appear too great, and that she may even dis pose of my life, which shall for ever be consecrated to her service' Tell the Baron also that I am vtry sensible qf his remembrance, and beg him tP accept the assurance of my perfect ackuowlcdgcment. Embrace for me the charming Victorine ; repeat also my thanks lo the Count, and assure him I shall n^Ver forget bis kindness. Remember me to the Countess, Madame Livia, and Mr. William, begging them to receive the assurance of ray sincere friendship. " If I were lo tell you all those who send you salutations, I should want two raore pages; for every one is interested for you, and they never cease to ; wish for your happiness. Believe, however, the most sincere wishes are made by us. " Ypu will tell Mr. leronymus that John is quite well, and that Mr. is very well pleased with him ih all respects. His board is not paid for; and tell Mr. leronymus, on the receipt of this letter, I beg he will iraraediately send an order to — — '¦ for six raonths' pay, and address it to rae. He must Hot delay, for I have no money. " You will not do wrong if you send at the sarae time the txco Napoleons, to make up the twenty-five, if you can. It is I who send you the gown; instead of lace, you should trim it with muslin. Make my compliraents to Mr. leronymus, and tell hira the first tirae I write again, I will give hira raore par ticulars respecting his son, because I hope to have more room. I wish very much to know how ink is made with that powder which he gave me, and what he has done wilh the two pictures I sent hin\ at the Villa d'Este. " Adieu, dear and good sister. We embrace you cordially. A reply at . once if ycu please. Your sisler, " Sth February, 1813. " Loiiua De Mont. " A Mademoiselle Mademoiselli Mariette Brony a Pesaro." The Interpreter then read the original of the second letter, and afterwards the translation, as follows : — Letter from Mademoiselle De Mont to the Queen, dated Rimini, 1 Sth November 1817- " It is on my knees that I write to my generous benefactress, beseeching her to pardon my boldness, but I cannot resist my feelings. Besides, I am con vinced that if her Royal Highness knew the frightful state ilTto which I am plunged, she would not be offended at my temerity. My spirits cannot stip- port my raisfortune ; I am overwhelmed by it, and I am more than persuaded I shall sink under it. I feel a dreadful weakness ; a mortal inquietude con sumes rae internally, and I do not feel one raoraent of tranquillity. A crowd of refleclibns ' on the past goodness of her Royal Highness,' and ' on my apparent ingratitude,' Overwhelm me. May her Royal Highness deign to take pity on me; may she deign to restore rae her prpcious favour, which I have unhappily lost by the most deadly imprudence ; may I receive that soft as surance before I die of grief; she alone can restore me to life. " I dare again to conjure, to supplicate, the clemency and compassion of her Royal Highness, that she will grant me the extreme favour of destroying 320 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. those two fatal letters ; to know that they are in the hands pf her Royal Highness, and that tliey will constantly bear testimony against my pqst con duct, kills me. The aversion vvhich I have merited on the part of her Royal Highness, instead of diminishing, would be increased by reading tli em. " I permit myself to assure her Royal Highness,, that it is only the granting of these two favoiirs which can preserve my life, and restore to me that repose vvhich I have lost. My fault, it is true, is very great and irreparable, but Love is blind. How many faults has he not caused even the greatest men lo commit! 1 dare flatter myself this is a strong reason why her lloyal Highness should condescend to grant rae the two favours which I take the liberty of asking of her. ¦" I allow myself lo recommend to the favour and protection of her Royal Highness my sister Marietle, and also her who is in Switzerland. Her Royal Highness gave me to undcrstaijd that, perhaps, she might be allowed to supply my place. The hope of this alleviated ray distress. It would be an , act of charity, for ray sisters have only moderate fortunes, and in our small poor country they are not to be acquired. 1 am certain her Royal Highness vvould have no cause to repent her great goodness and extreme kindness towards a young girl, who has always "gained the esteem and friendship of all to whom she has been personally known. " i cannot sufficiently thank her Royal Highness and the Baron for theix kindness i^i sending Ferdinand to accompany me; he has paid me all the at tention and taken all the care of rae imaginable ; I know not how to acknow ledge so many benefits; but I will endeavour by ray future conduct to merit them, and to regain the favourable opinion which her Royal Highness enter tained for me during the days of my good fortune. " It is with sentiments of the most entire submission, and the most perfect devotion, that I have the honour lo be, her Royal Highness's most obedient servant, " Louisa De Mont." The letters having been read in French and English, the cross-examination of Mad. De Mont was resumed by Mr. Williams. Who is ihe Count to whora allusion is made in the first letter? — Count ScMavini. Was he at that lime in the service of the Princess ? — Yes. I wish tb know whether the journal of which mention is made in the first letter was a journal comprising the vvhole time you were with the Princess ? The 6'o&ifor-Generflf/ objected lo the question, as referring to the contents of a writing. Mr. WiUiams contended that it vvas corapetcnt to ask the question. He /did not ask the contents, or any thing respecting the contents, but the tirae vvhich il comprised. The Solicitor-General persisted in his objection. > Mr- Williams then said he wpuld take the decision of the Judges upon the question. The Loid Chancellor consulted with the Judges for a raoraent, and imme diately after stated that it was their opinion that the question raight be put. Answer. — I do not think it comprised the whole time. Did it not comprise the greatest part of it ? — Yes. I wish you to tell me more particularly who Madame Bolaze is?— She is ^ Swiss lady. ., ResidiUi' where? — At Lausanne. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 321 How near Lausanne is the residence of your father and mollicr ? — Within three leagues. Is that lady a relation, or merely an acquaintance of yours ? — Only an ac quaintance ; she is not any relation. Where did your aunt Clara, to whom you allude, live? — At Colombier. In the same place as your father and mother ? — Yes. Do you not, in the letter, state, thai while you wer - taking some refresh ment at your aunt Clara's, a person unknown desired to deliver a letter lo you ? — I have already said the letter vvas a double entendre between me and my sister. Is it true, or not, that a person unknown desired to deliver you a letter? — If I may have permission, I will explain every thing respecting that letter. First of all, is it true or false that a person did deliver you a letter? Answer that question.— -l once received a letter viithout any^ signature. Was that letter delivered by an unknown person, when you vvere at your aunt' Clara's ? — I do not recollect perfectly whether it was at my aunt Clara's, but it was delivered to me al Colombier. Did that unknown person deliver it to you, whether at your aunt Clara's or not ? — I do not recollect where the letter was given to me. I say again, did any unknown person deliver to you a letter ? — I received a letter at Colombier, but I do not know who delivered it. VVas that the letter now read 1 — I don't recollect. Is that the letter alluded to in the letter now read ? — It was a letter without a signature, but it did not contain what was now read. Then it is not true that when you were taking refreshment at your aunt Clara's you received a letter, proposing lo you to go to London, and so on ? — I do not recollect whether I received it at ray aunt Clara's. Didyou receive such a letter at all? — I received a letter like that, but not exactly that which you have read. Did the letter contain any proposal to you to gp to London as a governess ? — I wish to explain that letter; I wish you would permit me to do so. I wish you to answer the question — Did you or did you not receive a letter proposing lo you to go to London ? Answer me that, and explain then as long as you like. — I received a letter proposing to jne to go to London, and saying that I would be received as a governess* if I should be provided wilh letters of recom mendation. The Lord Cliancellor. — Did you wish to add any thing? I wish to explain why I wrote the letter to my sisler, if you would have the goodness to hear me. (Hear, liear.) No objection was made to this request- Witness continued- — I wish to go back to the time when I was dismissed from her Royal Highness's service. The same evening that I was dismissed by her Royal Highness, and was to start the following morning, Mr. Bergami carae to my room. Me said Here Mr. Williams saiti, that any conversation with Bergami in her Royal Highness's absence could not be received. , The Solicitor-General argned, that the vvitness ought to be allowed to state all the circumstances that led to the letter, and that might explain its mean- * Come, come, this -n-ill do. After a world of shuffling, she at last, admits receiving a letter from some juaiter unknown, containing a proposal to go to London, where she would be provided for, ¦' 3£^ TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ing. 'Whether it might be evidence or not, it was necessary for explaining matters in evidence. Lord Erskine was understood to say, that such conversation was admissible as-explanalion. (Hear hear.) The Lord Chancelbr overruled the objection. Witness continued. — Mr. Bergami came to my chamber and said her Royal Higbness wished to dismiss ray sister also, on account of my conduct. I was very sorry on account of my sister, for she had no fortune at home, and could not live at home. I begged M. Bergami would speak to tbe Princess to keep my sister. He promised to do so, and at the same lime he advised me to write a letter to her Royal Highness, because she was much offended against me, and to recommend my sister to ask her pardon. I wrote the letter at Pesaro the fpllpwing raprning, when I parted with my sister. He recomraend'ed rae when I wrote, not to write any thing to prejudice my sister. I promised, on the con trary, to do all in my power to enable her to keep her place. I also wrote a letter to the Princess at Rimini. 1 wrote several tiraes to my sister, and always spoke much in favour of her Royal Highness, because I knew they would be in tercepted."' About the same tirae that I wrote the letter, I forraed the idea of quitting Switzerland and coming to England. At ihe time I received inform mation, if I got letters of recommendation I might be placed bere asgpverness. At the same tirae I was afraid her Royal Highness might dismiss my sister, and it vvas therefore that 1 wrote to her as I did. I dared not write freely, for fear of my letter being seen ; and I wrote only that if she should be dismissed I would find means of placing her here and paying her journey. At the same time, I know that since I left the Princess she vvas afraid I should speak against her. I, knew the Princess would read ray letter, and I wished to convince her Royal Highness I would say nothing against her, even if I came to England. In several private conversations, although raany questions vvere put to me, 1 avoided saying what took place at the house. These are my reasons for writing that letter to my sister. At the request of several Peers, Mr. Gurney read from his not s the expla nation of the vvitness. Mr. Williams, — Ask her if she has given a full explanation. — I have said so to ray sister to pay the journey.' The reference lo the banket is to say, that I wish to take the raoney now with my guardian, and place it here. They told me the interest would be double. If I had sorae of it here, Icould make use of it for myself or my sisler. Ask her if she has any more last words — any further explanation ? — No raore. Don't let her be in any hurry; let her take her lime; — now, any further jBxplanation to give ?— (After a pause) I wished by that to convince the Prin cess, who doubted my speaking ofher, that raoney would not teraptme. * So then, Madame, we are to consider this letter of jours only an ingenious device to regain the situation you had justly forfeited. We are not to consider it as containing your real sentiments on the Princess, but only a string of fulsome pnd lying compliments, written with the insidious design of falling into the hands of her Royal Highness, so that you might thereby regain her favour. Very well, Madame, we shall adopt your own explanation ; but pray what must the Ejiglish public think of the contriver of such a base stratagem ? What , niust they think of a creature who could act a part of sp.much falsehood, dup'ichy, and base ness ? What must (hey think of the testimony of such a witness } Will they, or ought they, for a moment, to suffer the honour of the Queen of England to be sullied by th'e poUpted breath of such perfidious reptiles ? Still less will they listeii to a vile slanderer, who, wfth shameless effrontery, admitied she bad been dismissed from thi; service of the Ptiucess for the lies she had circulated of her benefactress. Oh Madame Dumobt, Dumont, " d good repulatiai is better than a girdle of gold," TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 923i Have you now any other explanation ? — (After a long pause) I will say also 1 felt at that time a great degree of attachment to her Royal Highnessj and I felt grateful for the kindness she had shbwn mc while in tlie house.* Any thing more? — I do not remeraber entirely all the circumstances re specting the letter. [Her several explanations were read by Mr. Gurney.] You saw the letter last night ? — I have seen it. I said I knew it again, but I do not know the whole of its contents. Did you not see the letters last night when they were put before you ? — I saw two letters placed before me. I know it, and that is the reason why I ask you, did you not seethe date? — I did know the date when I saw il. Did you not see the date of both ? — I saw the date of the letter from Co lombier. You did see Colombier? — I saw Colombier at the top. When you left this place last night — I don't ask you where you went, I am sure — who accompanied you ? — A lady, one of ray friends. Do you mean lo represent that no one else saw you since you were ex amined here last night? — I have seen the people of the house, and the person sent to fetch me: I don't know his narae. Were you not some time in a place near the place where you now are before you went home ?— / went directly home. The Interpreter. — The word used (direciemeni) is equivocal ; it may mean that she did not go out of the direct way home. Did you not stop in some other place ? — I went directly home. The Interpreter. — There is the same ambiguity still. Witness. — I went directly horae without waiting, I want to know, not whether you went straight horae without going to another place, but whether, before you went horae, you stayed any where? The Lord Chancellor. — Before you began to go home? — I remained a mo ment in a room above. You say you remained a moment — how long ? — / don't recollect exactly. Do you mean lo represent it was not above a moment ?~J>!o answer. Will you swear it vvas not half an hour? — I do not swear it; I may have remained half an hour. An hour ? — I cannot swear the time. What did you mean by saying a moment ? did you mean only a short time ? ¦' — I meant it was not a long lime. Will you give us some notion of the tirae ? Will you swear you did not remain there two hours ?— I cannot swear the time, because I do not recollect the time.f * Here she distinctly admits that she felt greatly attached to her Royal Highness when expelled from her service, and that she wrote the letter under the impression she had received of tbe kindness and conduct of the Princess while in lier Majesty's' establishment. This is all we»wish ; it is all the public can desire ; it is all her Majesty can ask ; it is the deliberate acknowledgement of the witness herself of the opinion she entertained of the conduct of ihe Queen, after accompanying her at Naples, Jerusalem, and througoout the whole course of her Majesty's travels. t Here is a pretty backing out, or rather in. Twice she affirms she went dii-crtii; home; prosse'd still closer, she afBrms she " went directly home without waiting." Then, in reply to the Chancellor, she admits she waited a " moment," only a moment, " in a room above."- Then she cannot swear she did not wait half an hour, nor cm hour, nor even two lumrs, Ob, Madam Dumont, aliastte Countess of Culorabier, alias the Swiss Chambermaid, this i? sad work ! 324 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Do you raean to say' that there was no one with you during that time. but the lady who accompanied you ?— I saw the lady and the person who came to fetch rae. I offered you tirae, if you wanted it, lo recollect every thing you had to, say. Do you mean to say you have not been thinking of ihe letters since you v\'ere cross-examined yesterday respecting them ?7-I have not passed the timt- reflecling on them ; I have been talking of them. Do you mean that you have been thinking of thera, but not the whole time? — I was not thinking of them the whole lime, because I retired lo my bed-chamber. In that letter, what place do you mean by the capital of Europe?— I can't recal to mind what I meant, because I was accustomed to write in a double sense, and it is so long since I wrote that letter that 1 can't recollect. Having heard that letter read in French'and English, don't you know what you meant by the capital of Eui;ope?— It is impossible for me dt such a dis tance of time tb recollect what 1 meant by all the words. By the capital of Europe 1 meant Lausanne or Colombier. Were you in the habit of calling Colombier ihe capital of Europe ?— I vvas often in the habit of calling it a capital in writing to my sisler or friends j not Ihat I considered that the capital of Europe, but because I was in the habit of writing in a double sense, 'Very well; and whether you call that place the capital of Europe in this letter, or whether you had any other meaning for that expression, you can't tell ? — I cannot. You say in that letter that you wanted money ? — Yes. Was that true or nol? — ^I had no money at home ; but if I wanted any, I could have got it from my guardian. Had you no money at home?; — I don't recollect whelher I had any money at horae ; if I needed, I should have had it from my guardian. Perhaps I had no money at home. Doyou mean to say that you were at all supported by your father and inothorin Switzerland, after you quilled the service of her Royal Highness ? — I paid board to my mother for ray keep and maintenance. You were nol assisted at all with money during that time by aiiy body ? — J don't recollect Ihafany- one gave me money,* Nor advanced you any-' — No. You mention in this letter a sister besides Mariette? — Yes. I hardly need ask if you are much attached to that sister? — Iwas always much attached to her. And that sister you wished to go inlo the serviee of her Royal Highness ? It is clear you received a good long drilling in the " room above" for this day's duty, but all insufficient to maintain " a good reputation." ' Whatever the Coimtess iDay say, it is clear, from the lenor ofher letter, she was stra'ight- eaed for cash. Why talk so much of thS wisdom of economy and Ihe fully of her own extravngarice ? This clearly implies she -was in some pecuniary difficulties^ The.'i she tell her sister, very significantly, " 'You will do no wrong if you send, at ihe same time, the -tuio Napoleons, to make up the twenty-five, if you can," But ihis no doubt, was in a double sense, a mere double entendre. However, seeing the Countess's father was only a labourer, it is curious in what manner she supported her title and dignity from 1817, the period when she left the Princess, to 1820. 'We shrewdly suspect that this has been done by ^means of some loans eilher from ft}. Sacchi, her quondam, alias her bed-fellow, or Colonel Brown, in antici- paliyn of Uie high proitctimi and brilliant fortune Madame was' to enjoy in London. TllIAL OF THE QUEEN. 325 — t wished lo place her in the service ef the Princess, because she wished to travel, and had often spoken lo me to place her out. Whal age, was she ? — Near I9. I can't recollect exncllyi Was she then.19, or is she now J9 ? — At that time. Where'does your father live ? — Al Colombier. Of what trade is he? — He is an agriculturist, a farmer. Does he farm his own estate? — He has a small demesne, which he cultivates. Is he rich ? — He subsists by what he farms. Does he not maintain himself by his own labour ? — Yes. He lives in a small cottage, does he not ? — A small house. Has he not some of the family living with hira ? — My mother and two of his daughters live with him. This closed the cross-examination of the witness. Re-examined by the Solicitor-General. — Had your falher any property of his own ? — My father had sorae land which belongs to hira. Is that the land he cultivates ? — Yes. Is it by that land and his labour that be raainlains himself? — Yes. Have you ahy property ? — Yes. Tb what amount a year ?^ — Something abbut 50 Louis. Is ybur sister Alarieite still in the service of her Royal Highness ? — Yes. Has she any thing of her own but her wages? — She has nothing but what she receives frora the Princess. You told us yesterday that j'ou were disraissed from the service of her P.oyal Highness for saying something that was not true : state the circumstances of your dismissal ? — I vvas disrnissed frora the service of the Princess because she had been told that Mr. Sacchi had been told that the Princess vvas in love with hira, and that I had told him so. This proceeded frora a letter which 1 wrote to Mr. Sacchi, and which was taken up at the post; and because,! said in the end of it that the Princess loved (aimoit) Mr. Sacchi. I did npt mean love, but that the Princess liked hira as well as others of ihe house — in the sarae raanner as olher persons of the bouse. After this letter I was dis missed, because the Princess thought I meant love, but it was not literally love that I intended. What did you mean by the expressions of the letter about the Princess ? — As far as I can recollect, I said in the letter that the Princess was in love with him, and esteemed him as in former limes. The Solicitor-General wished the word " aimoit," used by the witness, to be inserted in the minutes. Where did you write that letter ? — [We could not hear the answer.] The Lord ChancelUrr complained that both the Solicitor-General and the in terpreter, the one in proposing the question, and the other in delivering the answer, addressed the witness instead of the House, and thus rendered it impos-^ sible for their Lordships to hear. While you were writing that letter did any person come into the room ? — Yes. Who was it ?-^M. Bergami. Did he see you writing? — Yes. Did you afterwards yourself go to Pesaro?— I went myself. ¦With the letter ?— ^Yes. Was any body appointed to go with you ? — My sister and lerohymus were logo wilh me. After Bergami carae into the room was any other person appointed tp go 47 326 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN., ¦with you ?r—M. Bergami came into my room and told me I was to go with his cousin Bergami, who was going to Pesaro. Did Bergarai's cousin go to Pesaro 1 — Yes. , . Did you put the letter into the post-office with your own hands ? — Yes. Did you on the following morning see it in any one's hands? — Yes. Whose ?— The Princess's. Did you afterwards write a second letter ? — ^Yes. Was that letter also intercepted? — Yes. Did you afterwards see it ? — I saw it long afterwards. Didyou, when writing that letter, comraunicate its contents to any one f —No. To whora was it addressed ?— Not tp M. Sacchi, but tP a perspn of another name. Whom ?— I don't recollect if it was Pancbio, or what pther narae. Now, you have told us you did not communicate the contents of the second letter to any one : did the Princess say any thing to you about its contents ? — It was after this second letter that I was dismissed. > That is not answer to ray question. I am asking if the Princess said any thing to you about its contents ?— I don't recollect that she mentioned any thing about the second letter. Did you dn any occasion stale that the Princess was in love whh §acchi .> —No. Then was the charge made against you true or false ? — It was not true.* Mr. Williams could not see the object of this course of re-examination, and wished to know what the Solicitor-General was aiming at. The Solicitor-General said he wanted to show that the words made use. of by the witness iri the letter, when properly explained by her, did not warrant the charge of falsehood, which in the cross-exaraination had been sought to be es tablished against her. The Lord Chancellor said, ihat if that was the object of the Solicitor-Gene- , ral, he ought lo ask the witness why she used these words. Solicitor-General. — Who were in the room when ber Ro^al Highness com municated to you the contents of the first letter? — M. Bergami and several other persons. Where was Bergarai ? — In the same roora vvith the Princess. To what place was that letter addressed ? — To Milan. How far is Milan from Pesaro ? One may travel in two or three days by the post. I ara speaking of the letter you yourself put into the post-office ; was that it ?— Yes. V A letter introduced here is dated at Rimini ; did you write it ? — Yes. Besides the letter produced to-day, have you written other letters to your sister?— -I have written other letters to her. Few or many ? — Neither loo few nor too many. [This answer seemed to excite General dissatisfaction, and the witness added^ / " 1 mean sorae letters."] ¦ Tell about how many; you need not be very accurate? — Five, six, br seven i somethinp; like that. " * However thu witness rnay interpret the meaning of her letter to-day, yesterday she swore distinctly ihat what she said relative to Sacchi and tlie Princess was false, and it was for writing this falsehood she was discharged. Bat it is impossible to make any thiog of a vyoman who adnuts she "¦ palters in a double sense." TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 3^7 While your sister was in the service of the Princess ? — Yes. ¦ Did your sister correspond with you and your mother? — I never had any news frpm my sister. , What do you mean ? — She never answered my letters. Did you or your mpther receive any answers tP the letters you wrote to your sister? — It was sprae Pther perspn that wrpte in the name of my sister. Who vvas it ? — I can't say. ' Do you know the hand-writing of her Royal Highness? — Yes. A written paper vvas shown to the witness, and she was asked if that was the hand-writing of the Princess ? — It resembles very much the hand-writing of the Princess of Wales. Have you ever seen her Royal Highness write ? — 'Very often. I don't ask you lo swear positively, but lo say if you believe this to be her hand-writing? — I believe it is her hand-writing. Do you recollect if ever you or your mother received a letter in the hand writing of your sisler ? — My mother received a letter from my sister while I was at Milan. In the hand-writing of your sister ? — Yes. You said Bergami was present when tbe Princess produced your letter that had been taken frora the post, tell us what Bergarai said about it during that interview ? — Respecting the letter, he said it was true that I had said the Prin cess was in love with M. Sacchi. I proposed to the Princess to write to M. Sacchi to have the truth, and M. Bergarai opposed it. M. Bergarai accused me with having passed the night with M. Sacchi. I said my sisler was present, and might declare that I had slept vvith her. Was your sister present? — Yes. Had you slept with her ? — Yes. Was the charge of Bergami true ? — No. Was any thing more done upon it ? — No. ¦ Were you asked about two raonths ago to take an oath?— Yes. Who applied to you to swear ? — Mr. Powell. ¦For what purpose was it to be used?— I don't understand the purport of the question. Mr. Brougham objected to the conversation that passed between Mr. Powdl and the vvitness being received as evidence. The Solicitor General did not wish such conversation to be taken as evidence ; he only desired to ask the witness if Mr. Powell had explained for what pur pose the oalh was taken, because it vvas right to have that ^ejcplained. Mr. Brougham thought it preposterous to ask the wiiness for what purpose Mr. Powell made her take that oath, as none but Mr. Powell could answer that question. The regular course here would be to ask the witness if Mr. Powell told her for what purpose he wished her to sw-ear. Did Mr. Powell tell you for vvhat purpose you were sworn — what use was to be made of your depositions ? — I "don't ,recoHect what Mr. Powell said to me. How long is that ago, as nearly as you can recollect, and try to recollect accurately? — As far as I recollect, two months, or something about two months, or something more than two raonths. Was it after the Queen arrived in England ? — Yes. How long after ? — I dpn't recollect nearly at what time it was the Queen arrived. 928 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Though you don't know at what time the Queen arrived, do' yoii know how long it was after her arrival that you were applied to to take this oath?-^It was! not long after the Queen's arrival. Had you ever heard of a Committee of the House of Lords ? — Yes. Was it after you heard of thatComraitlee ? — I rather think it was after. Before you took this oalh was you deposition read over to you, or did you yourself read it over? — I read it myself. Let us go back for a moment to Naples. You mentioned that you saw Bergami in a sraall corridor in his shirt, and that you then went out at a dopr ?— Yes. Did ypu pbserve any thing dpne to that door after you went out ? — I saw that they shut the door. (Onfermoit la porte,) On what side vvas the door shut ?— on the side on vvhich you went out, or on the side of the corridor ? — Itwas shut on the inside. Doyou know if it was locked or not ? — I mean to say that when they shut the door they gave a turn lo the key. I heard them give a turn to ihe key. Mr. UroMg/iam's. Interpreter gave a different translation, and said that the- literal meaning of the words used by the witness was " one shut the door," . ?' one turned the key," and therefore the answer of the witness should have been rendered, " when the door was shut a turn was given to the key. I heard a turn given lo the key." ' ^ ' , ; Several Peers cried, " No, no;" and the short-hand writer was directed to take down the French expression used by the witness. , How long after your arrival at Naples did you begin to make the beds ?— • About two months. Who made thera up to that tirae ? — Annette Prisor. How long did you conlinue to raake thera at that time ? — About three months. You said the door of leronimus opened into a corridor at Naples. I wish to ask you if that was a small, interior corridor, or any other corridor? — It was another corridor. Was it a private or a public corridor ? — It was a corridor through wh|ich one passed to go to the Princess's roora; through wbich passed leroniraus, myselfj and William to our rooms. .-Why did you go through that corridor ? — In order to be more tranquil. Since the arrival of the Queen, have you seen leronimus ? — I have seen him on the staircase where we lived. Where ? — When we were in Dean-Street. Did he call on you ? — He called twicein the same morning. How long is that ago ? — Seven weeks nearly. Were those the only times he called on you ? — No. You have been asked about Schiavini. When any of the servants left her Royal Highness, was it his business to give thera characters ? — Mr. Brougham objected to this as a leading question. Let the witness rather be asked what situation he held in the household of her Royal, Highness. In what situation was Schiavini in the Princess's household ? — About the latter time he was master of ceremonies. When any body quitted her Royal Highness's service did they get characters ? ¦ - ¦ Mr. Brougliam objected to this question, on the ground that in the course of the cross-exaraination no questions had been put to the yvilness that could lead to a re-examination en this subject. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 3^9 ' The Solicitor General, addrpssing the Lord Chancellor.— U tlijs ,linc of ^,xp.- mindlipn does hoi arise out of the cross-ejtainiirivtioii, wijl ypur Lordship put the questions for me ? Through the Lord Chancellor. — Do you know when sorvants quitted l^h^ »pr- vice of her Royal Highness, if it was customary for any one to give theiu a, character ?— Yes. VVho was the person who usually gave it? — I think, on spme occasiftHS 't vvas Count Schiavini. 'By a Peer. — You have alluded, in the course of your exa.mina,tion, to a large bed in the Princess's room at Naples; I wish to know what was the state o'f the 'bed on that occasion ?— If I were to describe it, I should ^^ obliged tp use terras that are not decent. What was the state of the bed? — It vvas very much pressed dovvn in the middle, and there vvere things there which 1 never saw i)e.fo\;e. What things dp you mean ? — I mean stains, very large stains. On the outside, or within the bed ? — On the outside, in the coverlet. Did you raake any further observation ? — No other, that I recollect. By another Peer. — Did you speak to your sister of what you then observed ? —Yes, 1 did. What passed between you on the subject? Mr.' Williains objected to this question, and it was withdrawn. You have slated that at the theatre of St. Carlos .fhe Princess wPre g. monstrous dress; what did you raean by that expression; — I meant (hat she Wore an habiliment without any shape. What did you say respecting her conduct during the ball ?— I said ih^t during the ball I savv her goirig inlo the upper rooms. Earl Grey. — On the night which has been referred to, vyhere did you pass the remainder of the night ? — In the same room vyith the Countess of Oldi and my sister. Did you go to bed there ?— Yes, I made a bed for myself on tfie floor. How lohg did you reinain there ? — About four or five hours. I wish that passage of the letter to be turned to, in which the witness spe^kf of the bitterness with vvhich the Princess's enemies pursued her, and of her being surrounded by spies. What did you mean by writing that passage?-7- It is so long since, that I cannot recollect. Was the statement in that passage true, or not ? — I knew that thousands of people had informed themselves in Switzerland about tiie affairs bf thp Princess. Dp you mean now to say that she was surrounded by spies and inforfpers, '(— The Princess told me so, often. But" this letfer was written from Colombier?-! know nothing myself, I said only vvhat had been told me by the Princess. Did not this passage follow that in vvhich mention was made of a p.ergg^^. coming lo you? [The letter was here read, as far as it contained the passages iti questipp.] Now that you have heard both passages read, do you admit that the asser tion about spies and informfcrs was founded uppn the fact stated in the §i^t passage, and not pn what vvas communicated to you by the Princess ? — I kpew nothing but vvhat I was informed iaf by the Princess. The queslion'was repealed.-rAns. The letter contained an allusion tp w^at had been comrau'nicatted to me about cpniing tp England, and getting i|i^. place of a governess if I brought letters of recomniendation. When you wrote that letter to your'sister, tjid you \hnf&. t^at t^e fact mei?- 530 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. tioned in it was a proof that tbe Princess was surroutided by spies ?— No, be cause the fact took place when I was not near the Princess. Am I to understand that the circumstance stated was true, or otherwise ?— I had received- such a letter, but what I wrote concerning it was a double - entendre for my sister. Do you mean to say that you added what was false to what was true? — I added something. Was that something false?— It was not added for the purpose of falsehood^ but that my sister might understand me, because I was afraid to write freely. What did you expect your sister to understand by the addition ?— I wished her to understand that if she should be discharged frum her place, in the ser vice of the Princess, I had the raeans of procuring her another situation. And was it necessary for that purpose to say that you had been proraised a brilliant fortune, when the promise only referred to a governess's place? — In speaking of fortune, I raeant to say that I would pay the expenses of my sister's journey to England. And was it necessary, in order to comraunicate this meaning, to say that the Princess was surrounded by spies and informers ? — I do not know whether it was necessary, but I did it expressly to make her understand rae. Then are we' to take it, that your saying that the Princess vyas so surrounded, and that a brilliant fortune had been offered to you, was a mere pretext, and was only intended to make your sister understand that you would pay the expenses of her journey to England ? — Yes, and also to let her know that I could get her a place in England, as my sister had said she did not wish to quit the Princess's service from a fear of not getting another situation. Did you write in this mysterious manner from an apprehension that your lelters woufd be intercepted ?— Yes. Did you take care, then, not to insert any thing in thera which might injure or expose a third person ? — I do not think I ever harmed or exposed any body. Were you not afraid of exposing the name of that gentleman whom you wished to conceal to-day? — I did not think he would know it, and I now also wish to conceal his narae because be is since married. I know that what is said here will be made public, and I do not wish what has passed to be gene rally knov\'n. Were you anxious that your sisler should remain in the Princess's service? —Yes; and when I wrote was afraid of saying any thing that might lead to her discharge. You were anxious, then, that she should remain, notwithstanding all that you had witnessed ? — There were particular reasons for her remaining at that time. Marquis of Buckingham. — Had- you any reason to believe that the Princess was surrounded by informers or spies ?— -I never saw any body near her vvhoiif I thought to be a spy. Did, in point of fact, any person vvrijte to you promising you a brilliant fortune if you would corae to England ?— I received a letter in Switzerland promising me a place if I would corae. But did it promise you a brilliant fortune in a short time? — No ; that was not in the letter. I intended-it only as an allusion for my sister. Then it is not true that any such offer vvas made to you? — None such exr acily. But any to that efl'ect ? — As I said before, if I came I was promised lo be placed as a governess advantageously, TRIAL OP THE QUEEN. 331 Did her Royal Highness wear the same dress (I speak of what occurred at Charnitz) during the night whicb she wore in the day-time ? — I have seen her with it in bed, but do not know whether she wore it at night. Now, vvith regard to the polacre, do you know whether, when the prepa-r rations were made for her Royal Highness to take the bath, she did after wards actually take it? — I only know that she told me so, and advised me also to take it, saying it was warm and would do me gobd, 'Were there any clothes lying about the bath, or other appearances indica ting that the Princess had taken it ?— 7 saw none. Was the bath in the same cabinet in which she slept? — As well as I can recollect the bath was in the dining-room. By the Earl of Derby, — Did you write In this mysterious raanner to your sister in consequence of any clue which you had given her, of of any under standing that subsisted between you ? — Yes, there was an understaudiiig. Was it such that you could convey your meaning to each other in a way that other persons could not understand ? — When I left my sister we concerted a plan of writing to each olher, and of using certain marks by which we might communicate what could not be understood by others. My sister said she should begin, and put sorae raark upon her first letter. Earl of Liverpool, — "i'ou say the bath was in the dining room ; was the occasion you have alluded to the only one in which her Royal Highness used the bath? — No, she used it more than once ; I recollect two occasions dis tinctly. On one of those occasions was there a bath in the cabinet.'' — I haVe bathed there myself, but do not know whelher her Royal Higbness ever did so. Lord Ellenborough, — By whom did you apprehend that your letter might be first read ?— I believed it might be read by the Princess, or by Mr. Ber gami. Were they acquainted with the names of the Swiss persons mentioned in that letter.? — I believe the Princess was acquainted with one of thera, but not with the others. Was there any other circurasfance which led you to believe that your letter might be intercepted .'^-I feared that it might, because my sister had written to my mother, staling that a letter which she had put into the post-office at Pesaro had been taken out, altered, and put in again. You have stated that when her Royal Highness was at Catania, yoUvOne raorning saw her coraing out of Bergarai's room with a pillow under her arm; how long had you been with your sisler in the room at that time ? - Mr. Brougham objected to this form of putting the question, as it assuraed that the witness's sister was with her at the tirae. / Was your sister in the sarae room wilh you when ypu saw the Princess ? — Yes, she was, as well as I recpllect. Hpw long had you been there without leaving it ? — I had not been out that morning. -Hpw Ipng had you been awake ? — About two hours. ¦What period elapsed, when at General Pino's, you say that Bergami en tered the Princess's room; between that circumstance and your falling asleep ? — I cannot remember exactly ; it might be a quarter of an hour. When you state that at Naples- you saw Bergami enter the Princess's room undressed, how far were you from the door by which you escaped ?— About foujf or five paces. Howlfar was Bergami from the dpor?—-! cannpt say precisely, it might be eleven pr twelve paces. 33^ TRIAL 6v i'h'e ^itl^i Did BSfgairii enter by' the door at which you escaped, or by Another ?— By atibtheh' , ,. , i .¦ On board the flolacre was not Bergami's bed in the cabin ?— I have seen a' b^d'.ifi'the cabin, but I cannot say whether it was Bergami's because I have seeh 'other people sleep there. Did'ydfi ever see Bergami sleep there? — Npt after leaving Jaffa.' Marquis of Lansdown. — Having stated that you agreed vyifh your sister upSfia 'particular m^rk to' facilitate arid conceal yOjUr, correspondence, can you point out any such mark in the letter which has been read ? (The letter vfa's''handed to'thewifness.) Lord Bedwdafc said that it might be necessary tb refer the witness to the evSdfenie she had already givfen regarding the mark. ,, The wifhess 'hete begged leave to retire,' and was absent for about ten mi nutes. On hef returning her testiraony regarding the private raark in her letters wa^ read over to her. The Marquis of Lansdown put the follbwing qiiestibns upon it. — Did yoil ever receive a letter from your sister containing the. mark on, ¦whiih you had agreed for ybur future cbrresppndence ? — I only received one, let|ef from ray sister, and I do not recollect whether there wais any such mark vi'ptiti it : the'letter I mentioned before, which had been taken up at the post., IF you had not received from your sister the mark agreed upon, why did y6U''conceive that your sister vvould be enabled to comprehend the double yeaning contained in the letter shown to you without that or any mark agreed u^Wi between you ? — 'We had not agreed upon that^ mark as far as I can recollect, for this reason — my sister told me when she wrote to rae she would pat a mark at the foot o{ her letter. That is not an answer to ray question. — I belifeved my sister would under-' stand me, but / do not recollect for what reason I believed so. It is so long since this occurred that it is impossible I can recollect.* .^ ., I understand you tb have stated that ybu did receive a letter inviting you to go to England, where you might have an opportunity of being placed in some situation as a governess that would be advantageous : was that letter arioriyraous or signed ? — That letter was not signed. In what language was it ? — As far as I recollect it vvas in French. By whora Was it delivered ? — I ha!ve already said that it was delivered to" me'at Catania, but I do nbt recollect by whora. ¦ Was it delivered by the post, pr by an individual ?— I dp npt recollect by whom it was delivered. Youi must say yes or no : was it by the post or not ?— I do not recpllect. In point of fact, did you know, or had you reason lo think you ^knew, by vvhom that letter was addressed lo you? -At this moment 1 cannot saywhe--^ ther I had an idea from whom it came. Since this occurred I never thought of it 'afterwards, and I cannot recollect. Did you return any answer? — I do not recollect making any answer. Can you slate whether there Was any thing contained in the letter besides the'Tact you staled of a proposal to you to go to England as a governess ? — I do nolrecotlect whether there was any thing else. Have you the letter now in your possession ?— I haVe it not here, and I dp npt believe I have it at Colombier, because when I left I burnt my let ters. 'rhe_ Earl 0/ Ifluderdale.r—y^'as it the information contained in the anony- * What a convenient thiBig is this no-raemory for getting out of. a scrape ! TRIAL OF THE QUEEN, 333 mous letter which induced ypu to think of coming to England as a gover ness ? — I already had thoughts of it. Had you tried to get the place of a gpverness befere ?— Np. Was the lelter which your sisler wrote to you, and which was put into the post, addressed to you, or to your raother ? — I cannot positively say, but, as far as I recollect, it was addressed to my mother. Was that lelter, which you said was the only one received from your sister, received by your mother while you were at Milan? — I heard that it was the only letter which had been received before I wrote this one. Was it while you vvere at Milan ? - I do not know ; before : after this one was written, my mother received three or four letters frora ray sister. Which letter did your mother. receive while you were at Milan? — Another letter. Can you tell how many letters your mother received from your sister after you had quitted Pesaro, and before your departure for Switzerland ?— I can not say how raany she received, but I know she did not receive many. Did she receive five ? — I do not know. 'Was it four ? - I cannot say positively ; it is impossible. Do you recollect that part of the voyage up the Levant where Bergami was sleeping in the eating-room, and the Princess in the room adjoining ?— Yes. You said, that on two occasions, when both were in bed, you saw them speaking together ? — Yes. "What did they say ? — I cannot recollect what they said, but they spoke to* gether. Do you remember the day when you went to the threshold of the room pf the Princess when she was in bed, and Bergarai in the roora, she asked for something : what did she ask for ? — It is impossible fer me tp recollect' at present. You perfectly well recollect that she did ask for something ?— She asked for something. Doyou reraeraber saying in your evidence that at Jerusalera, Bergami carae into the room and threw himself on the bed in a jesting way ? — Yes." Was the Princess there?— Yes. What did Bergami say or do "on that occasion ? — I saw only that, he laid him self down on the bed laughing. Then you saw nothing but that Bergami was on the bed laughing ?— Yes. When you saw Bergarai undressed, with a candle in his band, what distance was he from the door at which you made your escape ? — I cannot say ppsi- tively ; it might be three, fpur, pr five paces. Lcrd "Viscpunt Falmouth. — If when the Princess bathed there had be^n any wet linen in the batb-rppm which the Princess had used, would it have been ypur business tp have rerapved it ? —Either my business pr ray sister's. ' ¦ When ypu went into the bath-roora, did you in point of fact observe ahy marks whatever of the Princess having used the bath ? — I only recollect seeing the -bath. I wish to know whether you were sincere in your praises of the Princess at the time you wrote that letter with the double entendre : whelher you mean that the vvhole letter was a double entendre, or only passages in it ^-^There Were only sorae passages of the letter, because when 1 wrote it I was ex- tre,mely attached to her Royal Highness, and I was willing tO speak of the ex treme kindness vvith which she"' treated me. 'The Earl of Lauderdale. —Were ybu sincere in those parts of the letter 48 . ¦ 334 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 4 which spoke the praises of the Princess?— In speaking of her personal quali ties, that she was good and affectionate, I was sincere. Is there any praise bestowed on the Princess in that letter in which you were not sincere?— I do not recollect whether all was sincere, but I recollect that the greater part was sincere. By the Earl of Darnley. — You have said more than once that you were much attached to the Princess ; when did that attachment cease ? — That at tachment ceased when I heard that her-Royal Highness had said several things of me in the house of her Royal Highness. That several things had been said of me in the house of her Rbyal Highness. You have denied every other moiive : was it in consequence of the ceasing of that attachment that yoii have been induced to come into this house to give your evidence ? — No. (Some disapprobation of this question was evinced by the House.) What then is your raolive ? — ("'•' No, no," " order, order.") What is your induceraent to come here ? — I was asked to come to declare the trulh. By whom? — By Mr. Sacchi, on the part of the commission. You described the slate of the outer covering of the larger bed at Naples ; do you recollect the colour of the coverlet ? — Yes. What was the colour? —White. Are you quite sure ? — Yes. On board the polacre, on' the return from Jaffa, you say that there was a coramunication between the tent and the dining-room : was it open or closed during the night ? — It descended into the dining cabin. That is not an answer : was it open or closed during the night ? —Jt was open the during the night from the upper deck. ¦ The Earl of Morton. — "When you were on board the polacre, yon men tioned not having seen any linen : was the water of the bath salt or fresh ? — I do not recollect. Is itu.iual for persons to use linen on coming out of salt water? — (No an swer.) Was the communication between the dining-room and the tent always open, or always shut, or only at times ? — I do not recollect whether it. was open or not. / do not recollect seeing it closed during ihe night. * The witness then withdrew, and the House adjourned. *»• The examination of this witness may be considered to have exhausted nearly the whole case for the prosecation. Signor Majochi led on the battle, and after the Overthrow of Ihis formidable adversary, with some others of inferior note, Dummt was brought forward as the curps de reserve; but instead of recovering the day she only augmented the confusion of the , defeat; and thus have the two most powerful weapons ofher Majesty's enemies broke in' their hands, and the witnesses on whom they relied to establish their case — on whose deposi tions the Attorney-General embroidered his lying and exaggerated speech, and whose testimony was to flash conviction to every unprejudiced mind of the Queen's criminality — have been overwhelmed iu the slough of their own contradictions, absurdities, and lies. Like the ex amination-in-chief of Majochi, there was scimething plausible in the first day's testimony of Dummt, but the production of the letters, and the various traits of duplicity, falsehood, and cunning manifested on her cross-examination, deprived her evidence of all value and credi bility. Her abortive attempts at explanation tended still more to expose the infamy of her • This at least must give the finishing blow to the '¦ adulterous intercourse" in the tent. The witness admits ihe comntunication was left open in the night, so that any individual in the ship mighl have looked into the tent at any hour. We cannot wish a stronger proof of the pure and innocent intercourse subsisting betwixt the Queen and her alleged paramour. TRIAL OF THE Q,UEEN. 335 eliaracter. Her attempt to explain awny the real meaning of her letters bjj ridiculoua storici about double entmdres, private maAs, and intercepted letters ; her admission that she was really attached to the Queen when she wrote the letter, and she wrote it fander the influence of that attachment, and then pretending that she only altered her opinion of thePrincess from some stories which were circulated of her own conduct in her Majesty's household, exhibited her as a hackneyed intriguing charabermuid, meriting nothing but coi^mpt and execration for her malignity, selfishness, and dissimulation. SIXTEENTH DAY.— Monday, September 4. The Lord Chancellor took his 'seat a little before ten o'clock, and, the usual forms being gone through, Counsel were called tothe bar. Mr. Brougliam proposed that translations of this letters of Louisa De Mont, which had been read on Saturday, should now be put in, certified by the translators. The two French translators, Mr. George Pinario, for the King, and Mr. Ed ward Gastano, for the Queen, vvere called in and sworn. Being asked whether they had together compared the translations with the originals, and agreed upon the translations now produced, they answered in the affirmative. The letters were then delivered in, and a new witness in support of the bill was called. LuiGt Galdini, examined by Mr. Park. What country are you a native of? — Biglio, in Italy. is Biglio on the Lake ofCorao? — Yes. ; What is your profession ? — I ara a mason. Have you ever worked at the Villa d'Este? — Yes. Hovv long did you work at-the Villa d'Este ? — About 15 days, more or less. During that time were you employed in the house of Gaugiari? — Yes. What was his other narae ? — Sardini, and he is an agent at the Villa d'Este. Was he the agent of the Princess? — He was. ^ Do you recollect one morning being employed in making a cornice in his house ? — Yes. I do not remember the day, but I remember working at the cornice. ' Was Gaugiara at his house at that time ? — He told me, the night.before, that I was to get ready all the materials for ray work, such as plaster of Paris, marble dust, &c. by five o'clock; and I wished to have all things neces sary there, because I vvas working by contraOt. 'fhen Gaugiari was not at the hPuse in the morning ? — He was at the Villa d'Este. I waited till 9 o'clock : I was waiting for the materials he was to «end me. He did not send to me; and as I had 12 or 15 men engaged, I set out to go to Villa d'Este, in order that I might obtain the materials. The Earl oi Limerick expressed a doubt respecting the translation of the answer, and some explanation took place, but no alteration was made in the sense. WhatJistance was the house of Gaugiari from the Villa d'Este ? — He lived in the House of ber Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. What distance was the house you were working at from the Villa d'Este ?— About three gun-shot. > " When you went to Villa d'Este, did ypu inquire for Gaugidri ? — I did. Did ypu go any where to look for him? — Yes. 33i6 trial of I'HE QUEEN. Did you go up stairs ? -Yes. ¦When ypu went up stairs, were you in a large room ? — I went into a room, but it was not a great room. How long did you wait there for him ? or did you find him there? — I opened a door-rl saw a great many doors — I was rather out of humour, because I had lost a great deal of raoney by having so raany men unemployed — and I opened a door and shut it again. When you opened a door, whora did you see ? — I saw the Baron and the Princess, >vho were both seated. Whom do you mean by the Baron? — Bergami. How were the Princess and tbe Baron sitting ? — They vvere sitting together, and the Baron had his arm across her neck. What were they sitting on? — I do not know whether it was a sofa, or an easy chair, or a small bed — I cannot tell, for I was there only a raoment. How vvds the Princess dressed as to. her bosom ? — It was uncovered from here (drawing his hand across his breast). Can you describe in what position the Princess vvas? — She vvas sitting. Was there any person in the rbbm besides the -Princess and the Baron? — I saw no other person. When you opened the door, what did the Baron do? — He took away his arm, and said, " What do you want here, you dog ?" [The Interpreter added, that the term in the original vvas fnuch stronger : the wiiness said, that Bergami called him ragaziino, and afglio di cane, which might be translated " tbe son of a dog." W^hat did you say to tbe Baron? — I told him, you must excuse me, Signor Baron, for I am here to look for Gaugiari. Did the Baron make any reply to you ? — He told me that that room was not to be entered ; that it was not a place for masons to work in. Did you afterwards see the Princess aud Bergami together? — Yes, I savv them once more. Where did you see them together ? — They were descending the staircase arm in arra. Did 30U see them do any thing to each other at that tirae ? — I savv thera, while descending, stand for a moment on the stairs, for I was crossing them. Did you see tbem at any other timebesides this last you have raentioned ? — I saw them three or four times on an ass, as they were passing me. Was Bergami himself walking or riding ? — He was on foot. Was he near the Princess? — He was. How did Bergami hold bis hands with respect tb the Princess ? — He had one hand behind the back, and at another time on the thigh, because she was sitting on an ass. Behind whose back ? — Behind tbe Princess's back, because she was on an ass. Was any other person there? — There were people passing ^passing up ond down on ihe public road, because ii was in the day-time. Cross-examined by Mr, Tindall. When did you first mention this subject to any person? — I first spoke of it to the son of the factor. Did you go to Milan ? — Yes. Who applied to you to go there? — His name was Do you recollect when that was ? — -No. When did you go?— In the year 1818. trial of THE QUEEN. 337 Did you go alone, or wilh others? — I went with others. Whom did you see when you went to Milan ? — I went to ihe hpuso of the advocate Vilmarcati, ' Did hii examine you ? — Me did. Was any one else present ? — Yes ; three more persons were present. Do you know who they were? — I u;is lold one was a colonel, another an advocate, and I do not know what the third was. Was the advocate an EnnlishMawycr ? -They told r.ie so. Was the colonel's name Brown?* — Yes. How loiii^ did you continue at iMilan? — I stopped four days and a half. Were you under examination all that time, or ihe greater part of it? — I was examined on tho third or fourth daj', because others were there before rae. What did you receiye for going to ihian ? — I received nothing but 10 liri per day, to pay my^expenscs. Do you mean to swear that you received nothing more ? — I do. When vvere you applied to in order to come to England ? — Towards the end of March or the beginning of April last winter. Do you mean March or April of the present year? — Yes. Who applied to. you? — Thesame gentleman who had called upon rae to go to Milan. Did you. see Vilmarcati at Milan before you came to England? — No. Did you make any agreement vvith Vilmarcati about coming to England ? — I have made an agretment that they have given mc 10 liri per day, to pay my expenses. Will that pay your expenses? — That was for myexpenses; that was forme. Who paid your expenses in coming over to England ? — The courier paid rae 10 liri per day. Who pays for you here? — 1 do not know that. Where do you live in London? — Near this. Where did you corae from when you came here this morning?— Oat of a place not very far from'this ; but I do not know where it is. Are you alone, or are the other witnesses with you? — I have seen a good many of them, and a number of strange people. Is Theodore Majochi t li e re ? — Y f. s . Do you know Majochi? — I have known him since my arrival here, but not before. • The Queen, in her memorable letter to the King, observed that the shortest foad to royal favour VI as to plot against her honour and calumniate her character; aud this seems fully exemplified in ihe history of Colonel Brown, who so frequently appears in this business actively engaged in recruiting for witnesses, assisting the legal gentlemen in their examina tions, procuring testiraony by proper remuneration, and, in short, acting as purveyor and paymaster of the Cotton-garden troops. The following are the dates of the prtrtnouon'of this fortunate youth, who, we have already observed, is said to be ji relation of Casllereagb :—' Lieutenant Brown, fan IrishrAan,) 23d foot, about d year in the Quarter-master-general's staff, on the Peninsula, in the years 1813'and 1814; Captain in October, 1814, immediately before the reduction of the second battalion; from which date he was placed upon half pay. Froni this period he appeirs never to have had any appointment, civil or military ; notwiili- standing which, h6 was, contrary to all precedent, anh6 special request of the Duke cfiVel- Ungton, made a Brevet-Major in June, I8l7'; thereby, although on half-pay, going over the heads of all the capta'ips in the British service, from 1804 to 1814 inclusive. Further, sdll on half-pay, and resident at Milan, in January, 1819, at the special and private request of Lord Stewart, he obtained the Brevet of Lieut, -Colonel, thereby going over'the heads of i,l)00 Majors of the British Army I 49 338 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Does he occupy the same room with you ? — No ; he is in one lodging, and I am in another. Had the room in whicb you saw the Princess and Bergami several doors ?-^ — I went in by one door. There were more doors ; but this was the first time I went into that room. Do you recollect what time in the morning it was when you went into the room ? — It raight be half past nine, ten o'clock, or eleven ; I do not know. Were there oth-r workmen employed at the house at this time, and servants about ? — Yes ; they vvere working at the building. Do you recollect at what time of the year, and how long ago, this was?—- It was about the latter end of September, or the beginning of October. Re-exatnined Mr, Park. You have said that you received on your way here ten liri per day ; do you receive the same here? — No. What place did you land at when you came first to England ? — Mr. Tindall objected to this question. The Attorney-General insisted that the question was perfectly regular, in consequence of the course the cross-examination had taken. Questions had been asked in order, to prove that the witness had met with other witnesses. It vvas necessary to counteract that evidence by showing what was the reason for the witnesses being together. The Solicitor-General contended that his learned friend was entitled to put the question, and added, that he conceived their Lordships had already decided the point. The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the question raight be put. Where did you land when you carae to England the first tirae ? — Here, in London. Where was it you were landed befpre you went to Holland ? — I came for London by sea to Dover. Were there any Italians with you when yoii landed at Dover? — There were four. Did any thing happen to you at Dover? — Mr. Brougham objected to the question. Mr. ParA said something which we did not hear. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Erskine made some observations which were not heard where we stood. Mr. Park said he bad no more questions to ask. The Earl of Liverpool. — For the better understanding of the witness's an swer, I wish to ask him, when he opened the door and saw Bergarai wilh his arra round the Princess's neck, whether her Royal Highness's breasts were bare?— -I have seen it so ; and, so far as I am concerned, I have seen it un covered. The Xord CAfl«ce/for.— Ask him how far he did see her Royal Highness's breast uncovered ? — I did not stay to look ; I savv it, and made my, escape ; I saw it in the twinkling qf an eye (a laugh) : it vvas uncovered as far as here, (making a motion or sign which we could not see.) Lord Viscount Falmouth. — Read that answer. Mr. Gurney read it. A Peer. — I wish to know whether the Princess was differently dressed in this respect when the witness saw ber going down stairs from the lime he savv her in the room ? TRIAL OF THE QUEEfJ. 339 The Lord Chancellor. — Will the noble Lord whp asked the question conde scend to let others hear him ? — Answer frora the witness. — I say yes. The Duke of Hamilton. — How was the Princess dressed at that time ? —I cannot say so ; I saw what I saw, and was surprised at. Was there a handkerchief or any, thing else that covered her Royal High ness's neck ? — I say no. I saw it so wilh my own eyes : I saw her bare. I wish to know whether Bergarai's hand was round her Royal Highness's neck, or behind her neck? — I am the Princess, and you (the interpreter) are the Baron (much laughter.) Th^ witness here passed his hand round the in terpreter's neck. Does the witness say that Bergami had his hand round the Princess's neck ? — I have repeated it many limes; I have even shown it. A Peer complained of the great impropriety and indecency of the witness's conduct ill making such motions, and then laughing, as on this occasion ; and said it ought not to pass unnoticed. The Earl of lAverpool said that, whatever impressions might have been made on the minds of noble Lords, tbe conduct did not seem to require further notice. The Lord Chancellor said he did not think this sort of thing excusable." Alessandro FiNETTis wos ncxt called in andsworn. He was examined by the Attorney-General. (He is a black meagre young man.) Are you an ornamental painter ? — Yes. Were you ever employed at Villa d'Este ? — I was. The Lord Chancellor. — When you put a question, Mr. Attorney-General, hold your head up, , By vvhom were you first employed at Villa d'Este ? — By the Baron. What Baron ? — Baron Bergami. Hovv long were you at Villa d'Este? — More than two years. Did you afterwards go to Rome with the Princess? — I did. How were you employed when you went to Rome — in what situation? — I do not coraprehend the question. In what situation were you employed when you went with the Princes? tjo Rome ? — I was a servant. During the time you were at Villa d'Este, did you ever see the Princess and Bergarai together ? — Many times. Where have you seen them together ? — Walking about the grounds. When they were walking about the grounds, in what raanner ? — She was holding the hand of Bergami. Were they alone, or was any other person with theih ? — They were some times alone, and sometimes the dame d'honneur vvas with them. Did you at any time see them in a boat together ?— Many times. When you saw them together in a boat, were they alone, or was any person with thera? — Sometimes alone ; someiimes the dame d'honneur was with them. Do you know the room of Bergami at Villa d'Este ? — I do. Do you reraeraber being at any time in the ante-chamber ? — Yes. At what time of the day was it that you were in that roora, the ante-chara- ber ? — It was in the raorning between 10 and 11 o'clock. * The testimony of this impudent fellow does not throw a feather into the scale. Though he broke upon the Princess quite unexpectedly, yet he discovered nothing criminal. When we reflect bow often the Princess was surprised, and how incessantly all her actions -wfte observed by her treacherous attsndantB, and yet nothing observed bey-pnd mere tpying and familiarity— we mast needs conclude that nothing farther existed, even if the ;W,itnpsses Me worthy of credit. 340 TRIAL QF THE QUEEN. Did you see Bergami at that time?^ have; I saw him going out from the side of where the Princess's room was. When you saw him then, what dress had he on? — He was in a morning- gQwn, with his drawers on. In what direction did he go — Bergarai ?^He was going towards his room. Did you see where he went? — He was going to his rppm — he went to his rppm. I)id he see you ? — He saw me. When you were at Rome, at Villa Brandi, did you wait at table ?— I did. Did you wait at dinner and supper at the Villa Brandi ? — I did. Who used to dine and sup with the Princess? — All of the court, and some times persons visiting at Rome. Did Bergami use to dine and sup with the Princess ? — He did. Did i^ewis Bergami use to dine and sup at the Villa Brandi with the Prin cess ?— He did. Did Bergami's raother dine and sup with the Princess at the Villa Brandi ? — She did not. At the Villa Brandi the mother was not. Do you remember being at the Roocanelli with the Princess ? — I do. Was Bergami iii during your residence at the Roocanelli ? — He was. Was he confined lo his roora? — He was. Was he in his bed, or was he only confined to his roora? — He kept his bed. Did you ever see the Princess in the room ? — Many ijmes. • What did her Royal Highness do in that room ? — She was there conversing. AVith whom ? — With licrgaiiri. Did you see Bergami taking any medicines ? — I have seen him taking raedi- cines. Who gave hira the medicines? — Sometimes I have seen ber Royal Highness the Princess give him the medicines. Were you ever present wheiu Bergami's bed was warmed ? — I was not pre sent when -the bed was warmed, but I brought the fire. Have you seen Bergami get out of bed for the purpose of having his bed warmed ? — I have. Was ihe Princess in the room at the time ? — She was. Do you recollect going from Ancona to Rome with the Princess ? — -I do. On any evening, in the course of that journey, do you remember seeing the Princess and Bergami together any where? — Not in any. At any other time of the day or night, did you see them together ? — Never in the night; I have in the day. Did you see thera together ? — Yes. Where? what tirae of the day? — I do not reraeraber whether before or after dinner. Atthe time you saw them together, did you raake Any observation on their conduct? — I have. What was it? — Passing through a court, Ihave seen the Princess so (raaking a motion.) 'Who was with the Princess at that time? — Bergami. -> What did you see ? — I have seen the Princess put her arms so.— Mr.Broughan(oh]ec\.ed to signs: facts to which a name and intelligible description could be given was the only evidence hithert'o known in English courts. The Lord Chancellor. — Be so gobd as to tell the witness not to answer by signs, butby words; and desire him to speak up. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 341 The Attorney General. — Describe how you saw the Princess and Bergami at the time you were passing? — Bergami was embracing the Princess. Were you ever at Caprini, near Pesaro, with the Princess? Mr. Brougham, — I am sure, your Lordships will permit me lo submit, that the Attorney-Cieneral ought not to leave the evidence so. You have got simply the word embrace. The witness places one band before and another behind, and says, " they embraced." I subrait the evidence ought not to bo left so. The Attorney-General, — My learned friend before objected to signs, and now he objects to words. Mr. Brougham. — I object to words and signs which do not correspond to gether. The Lord Chancellor. — The witness may be asked whal he raeans by embracing. Answer. — She was raaking so wilh her hand. The Lord Chancellor.— 'tio gesture ; describe by words. Answer. — The Princess was putting her hand round under his arm. [This answer was repeatedly read.] ' Attorney-General. — Do you mean that the Princess was putting her hand round under Bergarai's arm? — I do. Mr. Brougham, — I can only express my hopes that your Lordships saw the sign. The Attorney-General. — In what direction were tlieir faces? — One against — opposite to the other. Were they near each other, or how? — Their faces were at a distance, for she is short and he is tall. (Laughter, and cries of " Order, order.'') This question and answer were repeated by Mr. Gurney. I ask you again, were you at Caprini, near Pesaro, with the Princess? — I have. With the Princess? — Yes. Did you ever see the Princess and Bergami together at Caprini ? — I have seen them there many times. Doyou remember any particular occasion, after dark, seeing them together? — Yes, on the first evening there. Where did you see them? — Out of the house, on the steps which led into the garden. What were they doing when you taw them ? — I went to look for the key, because I thought it vvas the wife of the agent, and 1 found it was the Princess embracing Bergarai. Did you ever see thera in that situation at any other time? — Not at Caprini. Did you at any other place? — I have seen thein sometimes also at Villa d'Este. Have you ever seen thera do any thing else to each olher? — I saw them kiss each other. Was that more than once, or only once? — I think only once then; other times I-do not remember. This witness was not cross-examined, nor did any of the Peers ask any questions. He was ordered to withdraw. DoMiNico Bauzo was next placed «i the bar, and sworn. Exarained by Mr. Park, — What countryman are you? — I ara a native of BelHnzona. Of what trade are you ?— A mason. 342 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Were you at any tinie employed in the service of the Princess of Wales ? — I was. How long were you employed in her service ? — From the year 1815 till 1817. Were you at Villa Villani ?— -Yes. And also at Villa d'Este? — Yes. r At the Barona also ? — I was also at Barona. Did you ever see the Princess at Bergami together ? — Yes. Often ? — I have seen them once, twice, three tiraes; many times. Were they walking ? — Yes. How were they walking when you saw them' — They were ina boat on the lake. When you saw thera walking, were they alone ? — They were alone. Were they separate, or arm in arm ? — They were alone, bul he was rowing. When they were walking together — Mr, Denman said, the learned counsel was assuraing that they were seen walking t'lgi'ther; whereas the wiiness, in answer to a question on that point, had stated, that when they were walking, they were in a boat on ihe Lake. Were they on land when you saw them walking together ! — I never raade any observatrons on their walking on land. Who was walking with the Princess ? — A certain Baron. Who was that Baron ? — He was called a certain Bergami. Was Bergami sitting at the sarae time ?-^He was, on the evening of the feast. Whal feast do you mean ? — The feast of St. Bartholomew ; the day of the house-warming at Villa d'Este. What time did you see '(hem sitting together? what time of the day? — In the evening. whereabouts were they sitting ? — They were sitting on a bench, under some trees — in an arbour. Was there any one there besides ? — I saw the Baron and the Princess, and hone else. Do you know Ragazzoni? — Yes, Ido. Do you recollect being at work at Villa d'Este, near a corridpr ?— 1 do. Were you working in a roora? — There was a roora, and there was another; there were two rooms. Was there a door frora the one roora to the other ? — There was. And opposite to that doo'r, at the other end of the room, vvas there another door ? — Mr. Denman objected to this, as a leading question. Was there any other, amd which second door, in that room? — There was anO/ther door. In what direction was that door in respect to the first door? — They were opposite to each other. (Several Peers objected to this translatipn; and the interpreter amended it as fpUows : — One led one vvay, and one another.) When the door of the loora that you mentioned first, and the other dobr, ¦wereppened, could you see through them bolh? (The interpreter paused a considerable lime before he gave the answer.) When I was going, Ragazzoni was coming out, and we met. When you met Ragazzoni, or the " garpon," could you see into the other room? — I could, becau.'ie the door was open. / Could you see any person in that room when the door was open ?— I did. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 343 Whom did you see? — The Princess and the Bnron. What Baron ? — Bergarai. What vvere they doing when you saw them ?— They were caressing each other with their hands. Was the Princess sitting or standing ? — She was standing. Was Bergami silting or standing ? — Both were standing. In what way were they caressing each other ? — They caressed each other with their hands. (The witness illustrated his smswer by stroking down the cheeks of tbe interpreter in a whimsical manner.) What part of the body did they touch ? — On the face. Do you know wbich was Bergami's room al Villa d'Este ? — I cannot dis tinguish it, because there were many rooms ; but I was told that that was it. Do you know of any alterations in the room which you suppose to be Bergarai's, after the Princess returned from Greece ? — Mr. Denmart objected to that question. Mr. Park wished the learned gentleman to state the ground of objection. Mr. Denman, said the witness was supposed not to know the situation of the rooms, but to have been told by somebody else ; and yet he was now asked if any alteration had been made in a particular room. The Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Judges, said the witness raight, be asked if any alteration had been made in the room which he had been told was Bergarai's, but that that roora could not be considered as proved to be- the room of Bergami. Do you know if any alteration was made in the room which you were told was Bergami's? — I have not seen it. Do you know of any thing being done to the wall of that room ? — I have seen the Princess and Bergami, and these caresses. I have seen nothing else. The last question and answer were read by the shorl-hand writer. Mr. Park desired the interpreier lo repeat the question to the witness. This was done, and the following answer was obtained — " I have not a? present my, mind." Mr. Park had no more questions to put to the witness. Mr. Denman. — My Lords, we have no questions to put to this witness. The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and Antonio Bianchi was placed at tbe bar. Bianchi was dressed in Sk coarse gray jacket, and had a most stupid and clownish appearance. The witness having been sworn, was examined by the Attorney-General. Are you an inhabitant of Como ?— I am. Doyou know the Princess of Wales? — Ido. r Do you reraember her when she lived to Villa d'Este ? — I do. Have you ever seen her on the Lake of Como in a small boat ? — Many times. Who was with her when you have seen her in a small boat ?-»— There werft two in the boat. Who was the other? — A certain baron, called Bergami. Were they alone ? — They two were alone. Do you know the river Brescia ? — I do. Have you ever seen the Princess and Bergami in that river-- on the river? —I have. What have you seen them about there I — I have seen them in a, little canoe, near to a gate— a flood gate,, which was put in to prevent the water from. overflowing the country. 344 TRIAL OE THE QUEEN. What were they doing there? — I have seen the canoe first empty, and then a moment after the Princess and Bergami were in it. Where did the Princess and Bergarai come from when vou saw them in the canoe.' — From this flood-gale (riparo). The Attorney-General thought that ." flood-gate" was not the proper inter pretation. Mr. Denman thought it was. Where was this gate on the river ? — It was a bank : this is the river, and this is the riparo (vvhich the interpreter conceived lo be a bank) to prevent ihe water from overflowing this tract of land, where there is a vineyard. The witness went into a- confused topographical description, and stated that farther on there was a little road. Where were ihey when you first savv thera ? — They were coraing frcm the riparo, and coming tp this httle road. Was that the only tirae you saw thera on the river Brescia? — I have seen them several times; but then I saw them go back and forwards. Hovv vvere they dressed when you saw them ?— Both m white. What sort of a dress had they on? — I cannot describe it, for I did not gp. tP touch thera. Did you see if they had been in the water or not? — Mr. Denman objected to this question. Two persons were seen near the water by the vvitness, and he was asked if they had been in the water — a fapt which could only be inferred from appearances, and therefore the wiiness should be questioned as to such appearances. On the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, the witness was asked if their clolhes appeared wet or not ? — I thought they seemed to appear wet, but I am not sure, as I did not touch thera. Did they get into the canoe when you saw thera ? — They did. Which way did they go? — They came down a small canal towards the •Villa. What small canal is that you mention? — A small canal leading towards the Brescia. What time of day was it ? — About two. After two. I ask you again whereabouts they were wheh you first saw them ? — I saw ihem the first tirae leaning against this rivage, this embankment. Was there water where they were standing, or vvas it dry land ? — There was a little water, not much. How ranch? — ^To the height of about three feet. (Braccio.) When you first saw thera were they standing in that water, or on dry land?.^ — I saw them that they vvere l%aning against this bank, and then after wards I saw hira imraediately lake ber to conduct her to the boat. Was that place where you say the water was a yard deep, soraetiines used for bathing?, The Duke of Hamilton said that braccio, the word which the witness had used, did not raean " a yard." The two forraer questions and answers were read by the short-hand writer ; and the wiiness explained his meaning by holding up his hands to a certain height. Was that place used for bathing ?-— Many gentlemen went there to bathe. The Queen's Interpreter said the witness had not added the words " to bathe." TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 34.5 fhe question vvas therefore repeated, and the vvitness said, many gentlemen go there to take a little bathing, because the bank is good, and the water is clear. When you first saw the Princess and Bergami in that place, were they in the water or nol ? The Interpreter having put the question to the witness. The Earl of Limerick complained that il had not been accurately translated, as the word " first, " which the learned counsel had used, had been omitted. Witness. — They vvere in the water, but they came out immediately as soon' as they savv mc. You say the Princess vvas dressed in white ; what sort of a lower dress had she on ? — A species of loose trowsers which reached to the feet. This closed the examination in chief of the witness, and Mr. Denman declined putting any questions in cross-exaraination. A Peer asked what the wiiness raeant by a " braccio?" — The witness ansvvered, as he had done before, by holding his hand at a certain elevation. The witness then ¦a.nthdrewfrom ihe bar." Giovanni Luccini was next called to the bar, and sworn after the customary ¦' formalities. Examined by Mr, Puatt. Of what country are you a native? — Of Gleunio, near Corao. AVhat trade or business do you follow? — I am a whiiewasher. Have you ever been employed al the Villa d'Esle ? — I have been. Were you employed in the service of the Princess of Wales? — I was. Do you know Bartolomeo Bergarai ? — I do. Whilst you were eraployed at the Villa d'Este, did you ever see her Royal Highness and Bergarai together ?-T-Yes, often, raany tiraes. Did you ever see them riding together in a carriage called a pado-vanello ? How were they silting ? — The Princess was sitting on Bergarai's knees. Hovv was Bergarai's arm placed ? — His arra vvas under that of her Royal Highness. Were you ever at work in the tower, at the Villa d'Este ? — Yes, often. Did you ever see them there ? — Yes, I have seen them. What were they doing when you first saw tbem ? — They vvere reading a book. Did you observe whether they were walking or sitting ? — They were sitting. What did you see thera do ? — They got up and went into a cabin. In what way did they walk ? — Bergarai laid hold of the Princess's arm to . help her up. And where did he place his arm after he had risen ? — I do not know, as they went iraraediately into the cabin. Did you know which was the room that Bergami slept in at the Villa d'Este ? — Yes, I knew it well. Did you ever see him at the window of it in the morning ?— Yes, I have seen him. How was he dressed ? — He was in a morning-gown of a lead colour, * So this confused, unintelligible, and contradictory trash is all that we are to hear in support of the following point-blank assertion in the Attorney-General's speech, " on one occasion they were seen bathing together in the river Bresda," p. 63; The humour of this story is that it was at two o'clock in the day, and many other gentlemen were in the habit of bathing in the same place ! 50 3iiS TRIAL OF THE QpEaN. At vvhjt liouj:? — Betwpen the hpyrs of 10 and IJ. 'liid yoq observe any other perspn in the room at the sam»time ?-rYes, | saw t,ne Princess! , \ What were they doing ? — They Iqoked out of the vyindpw a short time and then retired. Did you observe any thing raoj-e on thfit occasion ? — Np, nothing more. Werie you ever in the theatre at the Villa d'Esle f— Yes, I b^ve been there. vyere there any performances at the time ? — ^Yes, there was singing. "Th^ Priheess sang and Bergami accompanied ber in the torototello on his guitar. Crpps7e;!?^fifined by Mr. Denman.— Did you 6ver say at ft^ilan th^t you knew' nothing about this business, but that. you should like a trip to London ?— I was exarainpd at Milan. By Earl Grey. — Is not a pado-vanello a carriage comtnonly made use of in that part pf Italy ?— It is. How many seats are there in it? — -But pne seat. Can twp perspns sit side by side in it ? — No, thqy cannot. is it fhe custom fpr a person to sit on the driver's knees, and for him to drive with his arms surrpundlng that person ? — Certainly, one persou sits |j,efqre. By Lord Ellenborough, — Have you often ^eeit iwopcrsons riding in that manner f —Yes. The next witness, Carlo Caratti, was then called, and, being sworn, was exami,nedbyth,e ATHORHJiY General. Were you eyer in the service of her Rpyal Ilighness the Princess pf Wales! —Yes, I was. Hpvv Ipng were you it) her service ? — About two years. In what situalion did you enter it ? — As coiifectioner. Where did you first see ih? Princess of Wales? — In a room at the VHIa d'Este. . - Do you knovy Bcrganpi ?— Ye?. Did you ever see tlie Princess and him together at that place? — Very often; constantly. When they were together, vyhat was their conduct to each other, or what obser.yation did you make respecting it ?— Mr. Denman objected to this question as much too geiiieral. Here wasa servant asked to speak to conduct for two years, and to slate observations which must of necessity include matter of opinion. The Lord Chancellor suggested the propristy of striking out the word "^ob-^ servation" from the question, and of substituting for the vvord "conduct" vthat act or acts he had seen them, or either of them, do, requiring the witness also to fix, the lime pf each act. ' ~ What have you ever seen them doling tp each oth^r? — 1 have often seen thera walking amongst themselves, walking together. How did they walk ? — They walked as if they were true frieuds, as if they vyere husband and wife, pr something like that. The question was here repeated. They vyalked arm in arm, like man and wife. Did ypu gp with the Princess pf Wales to the Villa Brandi, at Rome i — I did. i;»id you prepare hreakfast at that time ? — Yes, that was my business. Did you ever see Bergami there ? — Yes, often. TRIAL OF THE QUEEir. 3^7 At what httujin the morning ?— Sometimes at nine o'clock, artd sotaetin^es earlier, al fivfe o'clock in thi morning. Did you see from vvhat room be came at that early hour ? — From his own room. Did you ever see bim come from any othir? — No. Did you go to Pesaro with the Princess of Wales ? — Yes, I did. Did you ever see her Royal Highness uind Bergami together th^«/?-^Y^s, I have. Did you see them together at Caprini ?— I did. Did you see them do any thing? — I have seen them going fo walk a thou sand times. Did the Princess keep a bird then ?-^Yes, a nightingale. Didyou ever carry food to the nightingale? — Yes, I did. Do you recollect seeing the Princess and Bergami together on that occasion ? —Yes. What did vou observe them''trt be doing?— ^They were kissing each other. Did you hear the; Princess say any thing lo Bergami ?.^She said, " do not reniaifi so long out, mdn eceut." Did you know which was Bergami's room at Caprini ? — Yes. Did you ever see him at the vvindow, or hear hini call' ftfr his s'ervaiit / — Yes, very often. At such limes did you ever see the; Princess also ?-^ Yes, in Bergami's rb.o'rn. Were you ever present when the Princess came down to breakfa^st ?-^Yes, it belonged td my situalion to attend. When she came dovvn was she usually accompanied by any body ? — Yes, she had Berga'ihi usually under hir arm, ' Cross-examined by Mr. Williams. Were you constantly in the house ? — It was part of my duty to wdit oh thie Princess. ^ Where vyas the nightingale kept ?-^In a rooni before the cabinet of the Princess, What vvas the room called f— It was generally called a roorh for cpmpaiiy. What tirae was it vVhen you ca'rried food to the nightingale? — About ten o'clock. Was that the usual hour ? — It was. Francisco Gassino was next called,and examined li) Mr. V&A'i'i. Of what country are you a native ? — I come from the neighbourhood of ComO. What is your occupation ? — I ara a mason. Do youknov* the Villa d'Es-te?— I have been employed there seVenteen years. Were you employed there whilst the Princess resided in it?-.^I was. Did you know Bergarai at that lime? — Yes, I knew him before. In vif'bat situation had you knovlm him? — I had known him as a valet. Had you known hira to virait at table? — Yes, I had. Doytod know what was the situation of Bergarai's' roora at the Villa d'Este? —Yes. Doyou recollect when the Princess of Wales returned frotii the voyajg^ to Gfiece ?'— 'S'eB. Wa's'sfny alteration then ra&ie ftbout Bergami's bed-room ?-^Y^s, I was employed to make one. What^li^ratrori- waS it ?-^I opened adObr in' it, one which had beefn before walled up^-vVhich IhStf ^op^dd mysdf. 34S TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ' Do yoil. know whether the bed-roora of her Royal Highness was- changed about the same tirae? — Yes ; it was changed about two days after the door in Bergami's ropm vvas re-opened. Did lh^§ door open a communication to the new bed-room of her Royal Highness ?— It did ; there was a room between them, whicb led from one to the other. When the new door in Bergarai's room was opened, how did you go from it to the room of the Princess? — From that door into an adjoining room, then through a small corridor into the Princess's chamber. Before the new door was opened jn Bergami's roora, how would a person have to go from that roora to her Royal Highness's? — He must go first by a staircase, tben through a large room into an aiite-charaber, and so by the corridor. Did the door you speak of open an easier coramunication between the two bed-rooms ? — Yes, it was made shorter. Cross-examined by Mr. Denman. The door he spoke of was not a new door ; but an old one re-opened. , The next witness, Giuseppe Rastelli, was then called, and examined by tbe Solicitor-General. Were you ever in the service of her Royal Higbness tbe Princess of Wales ? — I have been. In what capacity ? — As superintendent of tlie stables. Where did you first enter into her service ? — ,\l Como. At what time ? — At the latter end of August or the beginning of September, 18X6. How long did you remain in it ? — Till the latter end of December, 1817. 'Where was her Royal Highness residing when you entered her service ? — At the Villa d'Este. Did Bergarai at that lime live there? — }\e did. Did you ever see hira ride out in any carriage wilh the Princess ? — Several times. Did you ever see them in a pado-vanelta ? — Yes, I have. ., Describe how they were seated ? — She was seated on Bergami's knees. Did you ever see them on the Lake of Corao ? — Yes, several tiraes. Did you ever see the Princess in a canoe with Bergarai ? — Yes. Have you often seen ber in a canoe? — Yes: soraetiines alone, and some tiraes with other people. ' Did you ever see her with Bergarai in any other carriage than the pado- vanella? — Yes, every day, alraost. Do you reraember Bergami's soraetiraes wearing a cloak ? — Yes, a cloak that was a present. , Did be ever ride out wilh that cloak on ? — Yes. How have you seen it placed ?— I have seen the Princess extend it over her self and Bergarai also, so as to cover Bergami vvith it. Whilst residing at Pesaro, do you recollect going vvith them to Fano ? — No, I do not. To Caprini ? — Yes. Was it your duty to accorapany the carriage on horseback? — It vvas ray business to ride before, and to come near the carriage when I was called or sent for. Do you recollect any particular occasion when you went near the carriage ? —I once went near the carriage to inquire what road I should take. TRIAL or iHi!. QUEEN. 349 Was the carriage open ? — It was. When you came near to th^' carriage, did you observc where the Princess's hand was ? — Yes, I observed il ; it was in Bergarai's siiiall-clolhej. Did you >oi- tins distinctly ? —Yes, I saw it distinctly, and wm so ashamed that I turned away,* ¦ Did you accompany ihem to • atolica ? — Yes. Did her Royal Highness go oul for the purpose of meeting Bergami ? — Yes. Did she return again before she met hira ? — Yes. Did you afterwards see her Royal Highness in the carriage of Bergami, and before you got home ?— Yes, and alraost imraediately after. Was Bernami in the carriage ? — He was ; in the brown travelling carriage. When he carae up to the carriage of the Princess, vyhat did be do ? — Ber gami dismounted from his carriage, and ran to the door of the Princess's carriage, and then she dismounted, and I saw thera together. Then she also disraounted ? — Yes. It being suggested by a noble Peer, the last two or three questions and answers vvere read over by the short-hand writer. The Solicitor-General. — And, alter they had both so disraounted from their carriages, did her Royal Highness address Bergami in anyway? in what terras or expressions? — They spoke to each other, but I have nol heard (did not hear) what words or language they used; but they embraced each other. Did you hear any expressions that were made use of by her in return ? — I ojily heard " caro amico niio," or to that effect. [Tho Interpreter explained the expressions lo.have tbe force of mon oherami in French.] . After ihey had embraced each other, and this exprestion had been raade use of whicb you have raentioned, what did they do ? — They took each other by the arm, and they went into the same carriage together. This was by night. Do you remember the litlle Victorine at Villa d'Este ? — I do. How, or by what name did she call the Princess? — Mamma mia. Does the witness recollect any conv'ersations between her Royal Highness and the little Victorine, at Ville d'Este ? — Her Royal Highneis caressed ber always like her own child, and called her ma cherefille.-f Were you ever at Bologna ? — I have (been.) Did you ever see the wife of Bergarai there? — I have; but it was at a tirae when the Princess was not there. Did you ever see her when the Princess was there ? — She was there once whilst her Majesty was arriving ; and they all escaped ; they all went away. * What a modest groom ! There can be little doubt but the fellow is uttering an abomina ble untruth ; but as no one observed it but himseff, the slanderer is safe from contradiction. Had such a circumstance really happened, and he been in possession of the secret, ii is liardly yike\y the Princess would have; been so imprudent as to dismiss him from her service ahout a month afterwards, as was the case. t This interesting prot6g6e of her Majesty is about seven years of age, and the dautihter of M. Bergami. She accompanied the Queen to St. Omer's, but such was her atiachini-iit m her parents, that she could not be induced to attend the Queen to England, so she rel(iriier| with lier father to Italy. The " little Victorine" is mistress of French and Italian, aa I p .-.si-sses considerable skill in music and olher fashionable acccoinplishmt-nis. Had the Qui-cn really formed an impure connexiun with Bergami, it is not likely her Majesty would ii ive been so attached to a child ot his by another woman. Love is too jealous of its enjoyuients to oeas an object in its presence, which continually reminds it that another has pariicipated in tbe same pleasures. Doubtless the early visits of Bergami, and many other familiarities, arose (ipm the Queen's attachment to his daughter. 350 TEIAL OF THE QUEEN.. [The Counsel' for the Queen requested, that the latter part of ^he preceding evidence' might be read, which was done.] Mr. Denman then objected to the last questions and answers. They related to what passed in the absence of the Princess, and were therefore irrelevant. He ought properly to have objected to them when they took pl^ce. Any thing which bad occurred in her absence could not be material to the cdse. He must, therefore, submit to their Lordships, that this part of the evidence ought to be expunged. The Solicitor-General contended, that the questions vvere perfectly proper. The notes were again read, and The Lord' Chancellor, having consulted the Judges, observed, that their Lord ships were of opinion, that this part of the evidence ought not to be expunged. Such questions miirht be asked. Cros.s-examined by Mr. X>en»ja». — Speak louder. Sir; vve must bear your voice, as well as the Interpreter's. [It may be well to observe,- that this was not very easy to do during the vvhole pf this witness's examination.] When were you dismissed from the service of the Princess ? — Towards the end of December, 18 If. Ask him, was he not dismissed for stealing the corn? — No. Was not that the charge on which he was dismissed ? — No. Then what were you disraissed for ? — Because 1 gave leave to two of her (the Princess's) raen, to go to an inn or tavern; and, pn their return, the Baron and Bernardo, his cousin, and sorae others, went to stop thesfc inen ; and when they came to complain to me of it, I said that I never knew that mas ters should turn " sbini" thief-lakers — impeachers. [The House appeared to be dissatisfied wilh this interpretation ; the inter preter explained, that " sbirri" iraplied a very low kind of Constable in Italy.] Why vvere you turned away, I ask ? — The day after, Luigi carae to rae with the mojiey which was due to me for ray two or three raonths' salary, and he told me, tbat " as I was an honest man I ought not to be among the sbirri any longer" ( much laughter ) ; and therefore I took ray salary and went away. And you went ? —Yes. Was he never charged, when in the service of the Princess of Wales, with- stealing the horse provender ? — Never. I don't mean charged before a magistrate; but was he not-charged by some one in the family, or in the service of the Princess? — -No, never. You swear to that as well as to all the rest of your evidence ? — I do. You never said, then, I should think, lo any body, that you bad been dis missed upon a charge of stealing corn ? — I have nol, because I never told a lie. So ; does he mean to say that he never told a lie, or that he never told one without being well paid for it ? (Order, order.) The Solicitor-General objected to this question, and it was over-ruled by the Lord Chancellor. Do you understand English ? — Not at all. How long have you been in England'? — Since the, day before yesterday. When did 30U first hear that a commission was silting at Milan? — Toward* the end of December, 1818.- Between ihat time, and the time of yoUr leaving the PrinctiSi, vverfe you iit tihy other service ? — No. How did you support yourself in the mean time?— I have a pension, and have always been in my cmployraent of a courier. From what government have you a pension? — From Italy; rhy government. THIAL OP THE QUEEN. 3.51 Did you offer yourself as' a witness to the Milan commission, or did thost^ who paid you your pension induce you to go there; or how ?— I have not been at Milan for this purpose ; but I am married ; I am settled : I have my house at Milan. I did not ask you whether you went to Milan, but how you went to the Milan commissioners? Were you induced to go there, or did you go volunta»' rily ? — I was sent after. VVho sent after you ? — ^The first time, a man of the name of Riganti came; he came to tell me to go before the advocate, Vilmarcati. Riganti is a tobacconist at Milan, is be not ? — He is. Hovv soon after Riganti spoke to you did you go before the commissioners ? — (The vvitness) " I have only spoken to Riganti tbat once." I ask hovv soon after his speaking to you was it that Riganti sent after you ? — The day after. Was any body vvith tbe advocate when you first went 1 — There was not. Did the advocate then lake your deposition ? — He did not. Did he ask you any questions about what you knew ?— He did. How soon after this did you go before the commissioners ? — I believe in a day or two after. Hovv many persons did you find assembled there ? — I found the advocate, three English gentleraen, and two Italian writers, or amanuenses. Ask hira, did he then tell the same story that he has to-day? — I did. Was it taken down in writing? — It was. Was vvitness sworn to the irulh of it ? — They did not .swear me, but they told me that I should be obliged to swear to the truth of it before a tribunal afterwards, and I said that I would. Did you then lake out your own cross and kiss it ? — I did not; they only told me that I should be obliged to swear to the truth of what I said before a tribunal ; and I said, that I would do. Did not the witness then become one of the most active agents of the Milan Commission 1 — The Solicitor-General objected that this was a question which could not be put, because it was not known that there vvere any agents of the commission of that description which the learned gentleman assumed. He had no right, therefore, to say, " the most active agents." Mr. Denman. — [To the interpreter.] — " Oh, never mind, don't put tbe question. — Did he not become a very active agent there ?" (An objection was here taken to the mode in which the interpreter put this question : he observed, that he had not said, " most active," as was imputed to him ; but, " one of the raost active.")^ Ans. — I was not an active agent. They gave me orders only as a courier, which is my profession; and as a courier I have done. Then you have been eraployed a's a courier by that commission ? — Yes, sometimes; whenever they had need of me. VVheredid you first go to in this capacity of courier to that commission ? — I went to Westphalia. Whom did you see there? — I went with a letter to a man of the name of Crerfj, to corae to Milan. ; Didyou knotv Ciedi before? — Yes, I have known him in the house of her Royal Highness. " Where was he in Westphalia ? — At Cassel. Ci'edi:«as, was he?— 'Y'es, 352 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. You say you look a letter to Credi, I ask you whether you did not pereuade Credi to go to Milan ? — I did. Did you not offer hiin money lo go, money to Credi ? — I did not. What did witness say to induce Credi lo go? — I told him that the advocate and the coramission at Milan required him, and that the expenses of his journey, bolh in going and returning, would be paid him. Where did you go next, as messenger to the Milan comtnission? — I went, accompanied by Mr. Cook, and by desire of — Leon, who told me to go to Frankfort ; and I had despatches thence for Milan. Did you go to Cassel and back again ? — Not at that time. 1 mean the first time, when you went to Credi; did you go there aud come back? (We did not hear any answer.) Whom did you see at Frankfort ? — I saw Credi. Whora else ? — I saw al a distance, but I could not speak to her, Frisson. Who is she ? — A raaid, who was in the service of her Royal Highness. When ? — When I was in the service of her Royal Highness myself. When vvas that? — At the lime when I was in that service in October, I8I6, at the Lago di Como. Did you see any other woman at Frankfort ?— I did not ; I saw this woman by chance^ but I did not speak to her. Did you go back from Frankfort lo Milan with Mr. Cook? — I did not go wilh Cook; I went back alone, vi'\th my despatches. Did you go back from Frankfort lo Milan ? — I did. What was the next journey that you made as courier to the Milan coramis sion ?~I was going with despatches lo Lord Stewart, at Paris. 1 took my de spatches to Lprd Stewart, and then returned. Do you raean Lord Stewart, the English arabassador at Vienna, or Sir Charles Sluart, our ambassador at Paris? — " Le Chevalier Sluart," tbe ambas sador at Paris. Where did witness go to ne*f, on the same business, from Milan ? — I do not exactly know wliere; I have been several journies. You say you went back frora Paris to Milan ; whither did you next go, as a courier to the commission ? — I went several olher sraall journies, which I dont now recollect: but I have now lately come to England, together with eleven other witnesses. Were you ever at Vienna on the sarae business ?— I vvas not. Has the witness had any other raeans of getting his bread since he left the ' Princess of Wales's service ?-— Yes; for I am, besides being a pensioner of my government, by trade a coachmaker. / Who recommended witness to the comraission ? does h« know? — Nobody recoramended me ; but, ' when I spoke to the advocate, he told me that I was only to tell the truth, and then I should do. Does he know Enrico Ravizzo ? — I do not, not that I know of. But let the witness recollect; I mean Enrico Ravizzo, of Lodi?-.— I don't know him. ' ' , , Have you ever offered any body money for coming here as a witness ?— I have not. Have you proposed to several persons,, besides Credi, to come ?— Credi has- not come with rae. The Solichrrr^General objected tb this question. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 353 The Interpreter observed, that the witness added, " Credi did not go back to Milan with me." Mr. Denman resumed. Do )ou know Riganti ? — I do. Did you never attempt to persuade bim to appear as a vwlriess ? — No i I have >poken-to bim in confidence ; but I never endeavoured to Jtiake him.. When did you leave Milan to corae here? — The first time I left it on the 29lh of June. Did you bring your father with you, and your wife, and your children I — I have not. What are you to have for coming? — They have promised me nothing. What do you expect to have ? — Nothing ; they have promised me nothing ; I have nothing to expect. Do y.'u mean "US to infer that you expect nothing ? — Yes. Who are the persons whom you came over with ? — Some I know, some I do nor know : those I know, 1 know because we came together; but I never saw them before. I beg to know who they are whom you do know ? — There were various; I knew them by sight, at first ; but I know thera not: I have no acquaintance, I mean, nor intimacy, with them. I only ask their names ? — Some I knoiv, and can say; others I don't know. I don't want hiin («i'.iiess) to tell rae any thing he does not know, I want the naraes of those whom he does know? — 'I'herc were Riganti, Miardi, Carlo Gione, Enrico Ragazzoni, Enrico Baji, and the wife of Majochi. Is Credi in England, does the witness know ?-*-I do not know. Is the raaid-servant in England, whose narae he h"s mentioned, vvhien he speaks of having seen her at Frankfort f — I'did see her ; she is. Does he know Cicerri? — By sight ; I have heard hira spoken of. I raean a raan who is so called ? — I know him by, sight, but he never spoke to me. ^ Does witness know that Cicerri was one of the agents of the Milan commis sion? — I don't know that. . Has he ever seen Colonel Brown ? — I have. Where did witness see him ?— In bis house, when I went to take him the letters or despatches, which I had for him. I believe you said you had never been in any service since you left the Prin cess ? I lave you been in any service since leaving her's, down tothe present time? — ^^I have not; in no other ihan as in the employment of a courier, of course Ask tbe witness whether he never sought Draconi ; he knows the man I mean ? — 1 have been sometimes looking after him and seeking for him, for we are friends — but not on this business ; so he has come soraetiraes and looked after me. Then he never offered Draconi any money to eome forward as a witness?— I have not. Did wiiness never say to any one that he vvould give hira money for his tes timony ? - 1 have not. Does he know Colonel Vassali? — I know Vassali — the Count Vassali — but not the Colonel. Did you see him some short time after you left th^^Princess's service ? — I did. . ¦ 51 354 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Did you have any cpnversalTon with him respecting the catise of your dis missal ? — I had. Did you not tell him any thing about the pharge of stealing com ? — I did not say so : I only said that I had been discharged, and I told him in what maiiner, by tht^^birri. That is all you told him about your discharge ?— That is what I said. If I said something more, it is vvhat I cannot reraember at present. Let bim remember whether he did not tell Vassali that ihe-charge, whatever it was, vvas false?— ^I did not say so ; I only said that I had been discharged for that which I have spoken of; for what 1 had said ; and it is true that I did say so. With regard to the time when he says that he saw the Princess and Bergami together in a carriage, and when be deposes to having seen her hand in that peculiar situation, ask him whether it was an open carriage ? — It was a species of pado-vanella, a carriage for two persons. The top opened from the sides, and there was a kind of covering which carae here (describing it with his hands) ; but at the raoraent I carae up to the door to ask for orders, I saw the hand of the Princess suddenly withdrawn frora that part which was here. Was that part of the " cabroni," from which the Princess withdrew her hand, above the covering or apron you speak- of? — The apron did not re'ach as far as here ; there was only the cloak wbich covered the cabroni. Then -you came back for orders, did you ? — I did. How far had you got beyond the carriage before you turned back to re ceive the orders? — To a distance about as far as frora here (the bar) to there (the pillars supporting their Lordships' gallery) ; three or four paces. I think witness had said that he was in tbe habit of stopping the carriage, and receiving orders as to which way they were to go ? — Not always; because sometimes I received those orders at the places whence I set out. If not, L used to go to the door to ask for them. Just so ; but when you had not received your orders at setting out, yoii v*ere in the habit' of coming back to the carriage in order to receive them? — I was not always ; that was only the second or third time; her Ro^al High ness made me go in the way in order to look after the road lo Catolica. .Then you had three of four times before received these orders ?^Tliey have given me their orders before we set out; and on this occasion they -thought that they would be sufficient in this case. This was the first time such a thing occurred, after giving me orders. Did they call you to the carriage ? — They did not hear me, I went by my self. (Loud cries of " No, no.") (The Queen's interpreter objected that the expression vvas " of myself," or " my own accord," which was repeated as the true translation. How often have you been'on that road before with ibe Princess? — Several times. Had you always before received your orders as to which vvay you should go ? — Sometimes I received those orders ; but on those occasions, when I did not, I raetely looked to the carriage wilh my eyes, and* they made signs with their hands which way I must go. It vvas not so this time. What did you see on this occasion? — I savv very distinctly the Princess take away the baud, and I was ashamed to see her do so. Was it broad day-light then,?''- Yes, it was between 2 to 3 o'clock, or after.. On a public road ? — Yes. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 355 On which side was she sitting ? — The Princess vvas silting on the left, and Bergami on the right driving the horse. To vvhom did yovt first tell this story? — I never said it before, except lo the commission. How long was that after jou saw it? — About eleven months or a year'" after, perhaps. Just tell us in vvhat month it vtas ? — I don't know precisely, but it must have been in the end of November, or beginning of December. In what year? — 18 17. You can't say vvhich of the two months ? — No. Who at the tirae lived at the Villa d'Este ? — There were Majochi, Bergami, and 6" or 7 others. With vvhich of them were you most intimate ?— I had no intimate acquaint ance with any ; being chief, I had none particularly. Did the Princess removo her band when she saw you ? — Yes. Did she appear confused ? — I did not see that ; lor immediately after I ob served her hand, I turned away my horse. How long after were you turned out of the service ? — I don't know precise ly ; but perhaps about a raonth after ; I am not certain. The Earl of Liverpool, — You have said you hold a pension from the Italian governraent ; on what occasion did you get tbat pension, and on wlikt ac count ? — I have received it 7 or 8 years ago, when in the service of Prince Eugene. When did you get that pension ? — I got it abput the year 1815, but it was granted me in 1814i. Did the present governraent of Milan continue your pension ? — Yes, they dill. Have they ever employed you as a courier since ? — No ; if they hiad, tbe pension would cease. What is the amount of it ? — Two hundred and sixty livres. The Earl of Lauderdale. — At the time witness saw the carriage, which way was he ordered to drive ? Which road was he to go ? — My order was to enter the town at the right hand, and to take up a person. Who gave you that order ? — The Baron. How did you gel the oider? — In a single word, like this — " Go down to the castle." I knew the way. Were these words *' Go down to the castle" uttered before or after you saw the Princess's hand ?— Atthe time when I turned round, on getting the ord^r, she withdrew the hand. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Ke witness next called was (jiuseppe Eoali, Examined by Mr. PauK. Do you live in Italy? — Yes. What is your occupation ? — A waiter. At what place ? — At the Crown Inn, 13 miles from Milan : it hes between Slilan and Corao, half vvay. How long have you been a waiter at that inn ?— Five years. Have you ever seen the Princess of Wales there ? — I have. • What a lying scoundrel I Is it likely that such a " slippery blade" as Rastelli, would not communicate such si circumstance, done in the middle of the day, in an op^ carriage, on a public road ! Oh, no. he kept it a profound secret, for twelve months, for Colonel BroWn and the Milan Commission. 3si6 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN.. How often ? — ^Three times. \Vhen did you first see her there ?t— The first tirae she came in a carriage, and tciok spraething for breakfast in the carriage ; that was about 3 years ago. Who vvas with her in her carriage ? — There vvas a certain Bergaini. What Bergarai ? — He was called Bartoloraeo. When next did you see the Princess at that inn ? — About 6 weeks after. ^ What did they do at the inn then ?— -They came to dinner, after the time the Princess breakfasted in the carriage. Were the Princess and Bergami together there ? — Yes. What was their conduct to each olher? — The Baron was sitting near the Princess. Was that before or after dinner? — Bergami arrived a quarter of an hour before the Princess, and the Princess arrived a quarter of an hour after Ber gami. (A laugh,) How did they address each other? — I saw nothing before dinner, for there were 9 or 10 altogether in the room ; they vvere the suite of the Princess. Did you see any thing at dinner ? — Yes ; they paid compliraents to each other. I observed they offered delicate morsels to each olher. > What did they say ? — They spoke in French. , What did they do ? — The Baron offered soraething from his plate to the Princess/ and she in return offered something frora hers to hira ; they were offerin.g delicate morsels to each oilier. In what manner did they address each olher ? — I can't well understand Trench. Do you remember the Princess having two rooms appropriated to her when she came to dinner? — Yes, I remember. What numbers were they? — Nos. 7 and 8 were the rooms. . Did they communicate with each other ? — Yes. How many doors in No. 7 ? — One. In No. 8, how.many ?— Two; one went to No. J, and the other opened out. Was there any thing in No. 8 ? — Yes, a bed. Did you see the Princess^in No. 8 on that day ? — I did. How many vyere in her company ? — At which of the tiraes do you allude to ? The tirae she carae to dine, say how many? — There were about ten in her suite. ' Did she dine in No. 8 ? — Yes. Did you leave Bergami alone with the Princess after dinner? — Yes, I did. Did the company quit the roora at the tirae you speak of ?-^They had. gone out. What did you see particularly pass between them when they were together ? —I went to enter the roora and clear the table where the corapaiiy had dined, and I saw the Baron holding his arm on the shoulder of the Princess. At' tbat moment, as I was going inlo the room, I saw the Baron give the Princess a kiss. But I did not go in,' for they immediately told me lo go away. In vvhat way was the arm of the Baron placed ? — The Baron was on the right, and the Princess on the left of hira, and he had his left arra upon her shoulder. Didyou observe how they went away the day you allude to ?— Yes. How was it? — They went ai*ay in a charabau. The Interpreter said that a charaban raeant a sraall carriage in which two persons sit, one of them as if behind another on ihe back of a horse. fhe witness was here desifed to explain the structure of the vehicle, and hp. TRIAL OF TIIE QUEliN. 357 described it just as the interpreter did,'' and ac^ded, that there was a seal for a driver, and a long cushion to sit upon in the middle. Was any bo and how many times you have had intercourse wilh them ;" and I, being sur prised at this compliment, endeavoured to persuade her Royal Highness that she was deceived. And Bergami v^s present, and began to laugh, and to cry aloud, " It is true ! it is true I it is true !" - Do you know to which of those girls it was that the Princess intended to make a present ? Before this question was answered, the former answer was read over by the short-hand writer, and, on the suggestion of a pepr on the ministerial side of thb House, the interpreter corrected " young maids" (verginelle) inlo young virgins. He also altered " honest girls" into " modest girls." Mr. Brougham said he should not object to this alteration of'' yoimg maids" into " young virgins," if another question was put to the interpreter, viz. : — Whether there was in the Itahan language any other word than vergine, or verginella, for a maid or a virgin ? This question was accordingly put to the interpreter, who answered — No ; maid and virgin are both expressed by the same word. The Earl of Lauderdale thought the best way would be to put the Italian word above the word " raaid" in the minutes. The Lord Chancellor said there could be no objection to put dpwn both words. Mr. Brougham said his objection was, that the word " maid " fiad been altered in consequence of a -quesllon put by his learned friend, and therefore ' (Cries pf " Order," and " Go on, go on."-) Did you learn from her Royal Highness lo which of those girls that present was n>ade ?— I did not. Have you seen Ihe Princess at those balls in tbe same room with those per sons of low condition '—Several limes. * Sacchi had notliing to say " against them," though he states above they were so aban doned that the men " made Ae women go out with them at fhcir will and pleasure," TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. SS5 Did her Royal Highness join in those dances ? — Sometimes. Have you on any of those occasions heard her Royal Highness make any other remarks on these women ? — When one of those women came to the house of her Royal Highness, and when she was seen by her Royal High ness, she pointed her out with her finger, and laughed ; and on such occa sions she once exclaimed. How much the population if the Barona would be in creased.* Did you attend the Prince.ss in her tour, Ihrough Germany ? — I did. In the course of that journey do you remember Bergami purchasing a car riage for two persons ? — I do. After that carriage was purchased, who used lo travel in it? — During the nights, and during days when it vvas bad weather, it was for my use. Did the Princess ever travel in it herself? — Yes, during days of fair wea ther, many times she travelled in that carriage with Bergami. Do you remeraber at any time, when the Princess and Bergami were gra velling in it, that you went on before iheni ? — I remember that on the day whilst they remained at a place, the name of which I forget, the Princess and Bergami set out suddenly in this small carriage ; for I was not in time to follow them, as I was obliged to see about getting the olher carriages ready j and having followed them as soon as I could, raaking the most haste, I could not overtake thera till they had arrived at the first station. When you arrived at that place, did you see the Princess and Bergarai any where ? — I asked about them, and I was pointed to a room where they were. Didyou go to that'roora? — I went, and, knocking at the door, inquired whether 1 could enter. Bergami answered I could come in, as I did. After I entered, I saw the Princess and Bergami on the bed ; but I must observe that they were decently dressed, and at a distance from one another. How were they seated on the bed ? — They were lying on the bed as far as the middle, and their backs were leaning or resting against the wall. In the course of that journey did you stop at any«jnn at which there were any English persons? — I don't know. Had you received any directions from any person upoh the subject of the English ? — I remember, when I preceded her Royal Highness on the road to Munich, she told me that the first thing, on settling for lodgings, was to in quire whether there were any English ; and if there were any English, I was to inquire after their rank, and to go somewhere else for lodgings for her Royal Highness. Now, in the course of that journey, what was the general disposition of the bed-rooms of Bergami and her Royal Highness ? — I continued to bespeak the lodgings as far as Carlsruhe ; but when we-arrived at Carlsruhe, the .same thing happened as happened at Turin wilh regard lo the arrangement of the rooms. I did not meddle wilh it any more during ihe rest of the journey, leaving her Royal Highness to choose any rooms she hked. I a.sked you what was the disposition of tlie bed-rooms of Bergami and her Royal Highness during that lime ?— Generally, they were as near as possible. ¦In the course of that journey did they go to Mount Falconi ? — Yes. At what time of day did they arrive at Mount Falconi ?— We arrived at night, when it was already night. — ¦ — f * With what malignant gunning the Italian throws in aa idle afcaervatioa, wWeh probably bad no foundation in truth, supposing it to have ev^r been raade, 53 366 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Where did the Princess and Bergami go on their arrival at Mount Falconi ? — Having been overtaken by a violent storm and darkness, we were obliged* to stop at a miserable inn. Where did the Princess and Bergami go then ? — They mounted the stairs, and went into a room where there was a bed. Did they remain in that room alone? — They remained alone till the rest of the suite arrived. How long was that' — About an hour or an hour and a half. After that journey did they return to Milan, to the Barona? — They did. Did they afterwards visit Rome?— from the Barona did they go to Rome? ¦ — ^They did. In going to Rome did they stop at a place called Savigniani ? — I don't know such a place. Do you remember, on that journey, the Princess being taken ill ? (The Interpreier, we believe, said that was at Savignana.) In going to Rome did they stop at Savignana ? — They did. Was the Princess taken ill there? — She was overtaken with violent pains. Did you see^ny persons altend on her Royal Highness on that occasion ?-i- Bergami and the Countess of Oldi. Do you know if any medicament was made for her ? — I don't know whether it was intended for her Royal Highness or not ; but I saw Bergami and the Countess of Oldi make hot flannel. [A Peer frora the gallery observed that " hot cloths" was the proper transla tion ; and the word " flannel '' was accordingly struck out.] * Was any medicine ordered ? — As these cloths were made warm, Bergarai, as well as the Countess^ carried Ihem lo the room where was her lloyal Highness. Did they go to Ancona ? — They did. At Ancona do you know what was Ihe situation of her Royal Highness's bed-room with respect tw Bergami's ? — One day I was called by M. Bergami, while he was sick in bed; and while he was speaking about something, there was an open door, (the Interpreier added " a door opeii") which led to another roora. Was it open when you came inlo Bet gami's room, or was it opened while you were there ? — The door was open when I went into Bergami's room. Do you know into what roora that door opened ?— Into another room which I believe was the Princess's. Why do you believe that was her room ? Mr. Denman objected to this question. The Attorney General said, that till the answer was heard it could not be determined whether it was evidence or not. Mr. Denman replied, that nothing could be more incorrect than the doctrine of his learned friend, which founded the propriety of o question on the answer that was to "be given. The Lord Chancellor said the witness should be asked if he knew whether that was the Princess's bed-room. This question was put, and the witness answered, I cannot say certainly. What did you see in that room when the door was open ? — I saw some things belonging to her Royal Highness, as for instance, the boxes belonging to her tgilette. . ° ° Did you see a bed when the door was open ? — There was one. Did they afterwards go to Roocanelli ? — Yes. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 367 • Wa.-! Bergami ill and confined to bod there ? — He was. During Bergami's illness, bad you occiision to go into his bed-room during the night ?-One evcninj; I was going lo visit him, and when I was at the door, which vvas part open, I saw hergami in bed. At whal hour vva-i that f — About 1 1 o'clock at night. You say you saw Bergami then in bed ; did you see any one else in the room ? — There was also her Royal Highness. Where was her lloval Highness? — She was by the side of the bed, stretched on the sofa. Did you see what vvas on the sofa ? — Soraecushions. On seeing the l^riiicess in that situation, did you go into the roora or turn back ( — I withdrew immediately -From Roocanelli did they go ic Villa Grande ? — Yes. In whal part of the house did you sleep at Villa Grande? — I slept in the wing of the hou.se, on the left of the entrance door. Do you know where Bergami slept al Villa Grande? — He slept on the right hand exactly oppasite to my room. Do you know where her Royal Highness slept? —Her Royal Highness also slept on the same side of the house with Bergami. Do you remember anytime at Villa Grande, when the rest of the family were in bed, seeing Bergami any where? — I remember one night, after mid night, vvhile it vvas insufferably hot, I vvas at the window of my room ; and as I heard a noise on the side of iIk; room of Bergami, I withdrew a little. I saw Bergarai corae out of his room, and go lo the door that led to the apart ment of her Royal Highness. He opened the door, entered, and I saw him come out no more. How long did you remain at your window after you saw Bergami enter?— About an hour. On any other night did you see Bergami ? — A few days after I saw the same thing. At what tirae was it you saw Bergarai the seqond tirae.* — About tbe same time as the first. Did you upon the second occasion see Bergami return to bis room ? — I did not. How long did you remain at your window the second time, after you saw Bergami go in at that door? — About a quarter of an hour. While you were at Villa Grande, did you see any busts ? — Yes, two. Whose busts were they ? The Interpreter wished to know if the learned gentleman meant to whom they did belong, or whom did they represent ? 'Whom did those busts represent ? — I was told that one was the bust of her Royal Highness, and the otlier of Bergami. I don't ask whom you were told they represented, but whOm you thought they represented from the likeness?— One her Royal Highness, and the other Bergami. Where did ypu see these busts ? — In Bergarai's room, at Villa Grimde. Were they busts of the same size ? — Nearly so. At what time of the year was it that you saw Bergami entering the Prin cess's room ? — In the month of July. , Did the Princess go from Rome to Senegaglia ?— /Yes. , Did she travel by night or by day ? — She travelled always by night. Was it very hot weather at the time ? — Very hot. 368 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. In going from Rome to Senegaglia, did you go to the carriage in which her Royal Highness was ? — I was always by the side of it. Were there curtains round the Princess's carriage ?— There were. Did you at any time go to the carriage and draw aside the curtains ?— Several times. For what purpose ? — Every morning, vvhen day appeared, I went to the carriage, to ask her Royal Highness if she wanted any thing. Whom else have yon seen riding in her Royal Highness's carriage?— Some times the Cpuntess Oldi and Bergami's child. What have you ever observed on these occasions, when you found her Royal Highness and Bergami together in the carriage ?~I have observed them two or three times asleep, and with iheir hands on each other. Will you describe how they were situated ? — Bergami had his hand on a particular part of her Royal Highness's per.son, and her Royal Highness's hand was in a similar position with regard to Bergami's, Didyou ever observe any thing with regard to the stale of Bergami's dre.ss — his calyoni ? — I once observed that they were half loosened, that they were free from the braces, and unbuttoned. Did you observe the situation of the Princess's hand on that occasion ? — Yes ; it vias on the person ff Bergami. Was there any olher person in the carriage at that lime I— -Non mi ricordo. I do not remember. You said, I think, that they Were asleep ai this time? — Yes.* Didyou ever see any thing else pass between them? — Yes, I once saw fidrgami kiss the Princess's neck. Did you attend them to Pesaro ? — Yes. The Lord Chancellor entreated the Attorney-General to raise his voice, in order that the questions might be audible as well as the answers. Whilst the Princess remained at Pesaro, did Bergami go away for any time ? — Yes, he went to Bologna for two day.s. Did the Princess go to meet him on his return ?— Yes, she went to meet him, with part of her suite. Did she meet hira, and where? — They met at the toll-gate. . Whal did you observe then to lake place between them ? — They dighted from their respective carriages, kissed, and embraced mutually. Did they then return to Pesaro ? — Yes. In the same, or in different cairiages? — In the same. Did Bergami dine wilh the Princess at Pesiaro, and before they went there? :— I do not know, as I was not present. * Here is another of these iraprobable circuiiistaiices which re.sts eijtirely on the authority of tlie witness. Happily, however, in ihis case the fact sworn to may be proved pbysiigally- irapossible. He says the parties were asleep when he saw their hands in this indecent position. Ndw 'fh'at the hands rtiight be so placed no one can deny ; but that they could remain there, in a rattling carriage, or even a still one, when volition had ceasijd and was absorbed in sleep, ^eicept they were tied or glOed,) is as impossible as that lead should ascendi, or smoke sink. 'The arra, this Italian conjuror should have known, is suspended by the sbonMer, and when the band is not held or elevated by tbe will, it iniinediately faUs to the utmost e'xtftift of the arm : in the present instance the position of the hands, as sworn to by the evidence, being higher than their natural ones, and out of I'he-direct line of gravitation, they must immediately have sunk as sleep oppressed the pnir-lies, and woiuld probably have r^ted on the QUsbions of the carriage. Thus has Signor Sabehi sworn to a fact, pontriiry to the laws of g.ravitatioii, and whiih, in the nature of Ihiqgs, cqidd Hottiave happened. Times, Stfa, 6. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 3^9 Doyou know where Bergami's mother and brother dined when you entered the Princess's service ? — When I entered the service of her Royal Highness, they dined in a room by themselves. The Lord Clumcellor again requested Mr. Attorney-General to keep up his voice. Did any alteration afterwards take place in this respect ? — I do not know. Do you recollect any person visiting her Royal Higbness whilst you were at the Villa d'l'.ste ? — Yes, I once saw General Pino. Did you ever see any olher per.son ? — I do not remember any other. Was there any person named Verona in the Princess's service ? — Yes. What was he ? — A messenger. In what situation vvas he before? — I do not know. Did you ever hear the Princess converse wilh Bergami about him ?^-No. Cross-examined by Mr, Brougham. You don't understand English, I take it for granted ? — No. Not at all ?— No. How long have you been in this country f — About 14- months. Where have you lived all that time ? — Sometiraes in London, and some times in the country. Is your name Sacchi, or Sacchini? — Sacchi. Wereyou never called Sacchini ? — Yes, I was called Sacchini at Milan. But is it true that you have also been called Milani in this country ?— Yes, it is true. Is il true that you have always gone hy thai name here ? — It is. With whora did you live at Stevenage ? — I was at Stevenage sometimes. How long did you live there ? — I never lived there. Where, then, did you live when you were in the country? — At Aston* How far is that from Stevenage ? — Four miles. With whom did you live there ? — I lived in the house of the Rev, PiUip Godfrey, Have you seen him lately in London ? — I have seen him once. After you left the service of the Princess, where did you first go to live ?-r- I went to .Milan. Did you go into any other service? — No, into no other. How long did you remain out of place ? — I have been always out of place since that time. Have you never been in any other service since? — Never. When were you first examined al IMilan upon this business? —In Npvejn- ber, 1818. Was that the first time that you told this story to any person at Milan? — No, I had told it at other times. What was the first time that you were ever examined on the subject? — - In the month of November, 1818. To whom had you told the stoj-y before that time? — To different people. Can you name one nf them ? — / do not recollect at present,* Who asked you to go to Milan to be e.xamined? — A messenger was sent ler me by the advocate Vilmarcati. * Can any one believe that, after he had been dismissed from the Queen's service, he never meattoued tbe monstrous story related above to any one whom he could remember till be communicated it to Vilmarcati? How preposterous ! itshows it is nil his owi) invention, after being hired to give evidence. 370 ' TKIAL OF THE QUEEN. Whom did yoU see with hira] — I saw no one else. Did he examine you ? — -No, not at that time. When was it, then, that you wore first e.icainined ? — About a fortnight afterwards. Who were present when you were exarained? — There was the advocate Vilraarcati, Mr. Powell, Colonel Brown, and a genileman «hom they called Cook .. Did they take down in writing what you said'? — Yes. Did you make oath that what you said was true? — No, not then. ¦Where then ? — In London. At Mr. Powell's chambers '^ — Precisely. In what way did you support yourself at. IMilan, when out of service? — I bad always means of my own. What wages had you after you were advanced "iVom the station of courier in her Royal Highness's service ? — They were never settled. What! did you serve the Princess as a volunteer? — No; I received some thing, but I had no certain salary. How much, in point of fact, did you receive during the first six months that you acted in the capacity of courier ?-^ Whilst in her lloyal Highness's service I received raoney at three several limes, amounting in tbe whole to 60 or 70 Nap^eons. How much did you receive as courier only ? — I do not remember. How long did you continue in the situalion of courier during the year that you- were in the Princess's service ? — About nine months. Who hired you ? — I entered her Royal Highness's service through the good ofiices of M. Chiviani, a banker, the Baron Caroletli, and Bergarai. Do you mean to say, that at tbat time youvvere in easy circumstances ? — I was always thank God, in easy circumstances. ' Do you raean to say that you vvere as well dressed then as you aie now?— - Yes, I was always. Always : well, but you know you were called Count Milani vvhen you were introduced to M. Marietti, don't you? — No, I do not know it. Do you raean lo swear that you don't know whether you were so called or not, on your introduclion to M. MarietU ? — I am sworn lo lell the truth, and 'the truth alone, and I swear that I was not introduced under the name of Count Milani. Mr. Brougham here reproved the interpreter for having oraitled two raaterial words in the witness's answer: he had entirely passed over the words " non so," The question was then repeatiid. I will swear that I Jo not know that I was called ihe Count Milani on that occasion. Will you swear that you were not called Count Milani in the presence of M. Marietti, iu London ? — I ara sure that I never heard rayself called" Count" in the presence of M. Marietti. Do you mean also to swear that you were never called " Count" at Aston, Jit the presence of Mr. Godfrey ? — I ara sure that I never heard myself so called at Aston. Will you swear that you were not introduced to INIr. Marietti as a merchant? T-Never. That yoti never staled to him that you had come tp this country for com mercial purposes ? — Never.. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 3/1 IIow did you represent yourself?—! always said that I came hero inthe service of a Spanish family. What is the name of the Spanish family ? — Tt\e Attorney-General objected to this question, as assuming the fact of the wiiness having really lived in the service of a Spanish family. " Mr, Brotigkjin submilled that on a cross-e\ainiiiation ho had a right to put this question \vi I hout reference to what had preceded it, for the purpose of trying the vvituoss's credit. lie would, however, to save time, shape it in a difi'erenl way. Is it true that you carae over in the service of a Spanish family ? — No, it is not true. Did you ever say to ^I. Marietti, oi^>-to any other person, that the Princess of Wales owed you money? — I have said that I had a law-suit with her RoyaH Highness, but never that she owed me money. Was it true or not that you had a law-suit wilh her Royal Highness? — I meant to say that I was engaged in the process vyhich was making against her Royal Highness. Do you mean to say that you told M, Marietti that you were one of the witnesses in the prosecution against the Princess ? — No. Was it then a double entendre that you ineant when you told M. Marietti that you had a law-svit with her Royal Highness ?^7 never said any thing to Id. Marietti on the subject. Then lo whomsoever you did represent that you had a law-suit with the Princess, did you, vvhen you raade that slateinent, mean a double entendre? — The Attorney-General objected to the que.stion, on the ground that hi« learned friend was not entitled to inquire into what was passing in the witness's mine!. -Mr. Brougham observed, that this was an atterapt to set up a new rule .touching the cross-exaraination of a witness. The witness had said that he told some person that he had a law-suit wilh the Princess, and immediately afterwards had stated that he meanl something else, something essentially dif ferent, as different as the situations of a party and a wiiness to a cause. This was suflicient tojustify him in asking whelher he had raeant a double entendre at the tirae he spoke of the law-suit. He had a, right to put this question, if only to try the credit of the witness. It was the common practice, on cross- examinations, to inquire into the motives by which witnesses' v^ere actuated — to ask what was their expectation of reward for their testimony, what was their hope or their belief on that point. If it were necessary to cite authority on the subject, he would refer to ihe cross-examination, by Mr. Mansfield, of a witness named Phillips, in the Duchess of Kingston's case. (Mr. Brougham here«ad several of the questions and answers.) The fact was, that similar questions were allowed on a re-examination, which was a species of examina tion in chief. He had known it done in this very case, in the re-examination of the witness Dumont, or Colombier, or whatever was the narae she might be best entitled to. She had been expressly asked, on the other side, as to what had been passing in her mind. , The Lord Clumcellor wished the terms of the question lo be repeated, and thought that, for the betler understanding of it, the short-hand writer should read several of the preceding questions and answers. Mr. Gurney accordingly referred to his notes for that purpose. The Lord Chancellor observed, that if the objection had been urged when the question vvas first put, he should certainly have considered it a little strange 372 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. to ask a witness whether he meant a doifble entendre. .^ He should havre been inclined to think that it ought to be put some other way. But the witness had already answered the question once, and he could not, therefore, see any good reason why it should not be answered a second time. To whomsoever, then, ypu told this story of a law-suit, did you tell it as a double entendre ? — / d/d.* Did you ever allow M. Marietti, or any person in his family, to discover — The Attorney-General objected to this mode of putting a question. Mr. Brougham. — Well, then, did you ever disclose to any part of the family, that you were one of the witness's against her Royal Highness 1 — Yes, I think, I did. At what time? — About two months ago. 'Did you mention your real name, for instance? — Yes, I did mention it to some one else. Did you mention it to any of the family of Marietti ? — I told my real name to one of the brothers of Signor Marietti, vvho was in the family too. When was it — how long ago — that you told your name ? — About two months. Hovv long ago, I ask, frora the present time ? — Seven or eight months. How is that? you told me two months ago: to whom did you tell your liarae two months ago ? — I don't remember (non mi ricordo.) Did that gentleman of M. Marietti's family, to whom you disclosed who you vvere, ever see you afterwards? — It is some lime since he set oul frora Milan. Have you ever been in M. Marietti's house since that tirae, in London? — Several tiraes. When was the last time that you were there on a visit?— About three or four months. Did they (the family) then know that j'ou were Milani, Sacchi, or Sacchini?, ¦^ — The brother, vvho bad set out from Milan, knew that I was Sacchi. Did, the others of the family call you Sacchi the last day that you were thij-re visiting? — Never. Didyou lell the family of Mr. Godfrey, at Aston, that you were Sacchi, or Milani, the last time you were with them ? — I said, I vvas Sacchi. Did you tell them that you was one of the witnesses, loo, in this case? — I did not say so myself; but I caused it lo be told to them. Whom did you cause lo communicate that piece of information to the family?—! caused it to be told by a Mr. Speiaii. Who is Sperati? — A Milanese gentleman, whom I have known in the house of Marietti. Is not he a relation, a near relation, pf Marietti's? — I have been told that he is a cousin. Now, just tell us, since you speak of Sperati, when was the first time that Sperati knew vvho you really were ? — It was one day vvhen he had asked me to pay him a visit ; then I told him who I was. • Signer Sacchi then, as well as the chambermaid wilh " beautiful eyes," deals in double etitmdre. Certainly it is ii very convenient mode of avoiding the consequences of our own conversation or wriiing to say that we meant ditferenllj' from what our language import?. But however ingenious this may be, il will not do in England ; for it is clear if a person be flowed to fix at pleasure the meaning of hi? words, it is iropoasible to make lum ever respon sible for what he utters either ih writing or Speaking. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 373 IIow long ago is this ?— Seven or eight months. You swear that it was at least seven jn'-nths ? — It was about seven months. Did you ever make application lo I.4 taken back iiUo the service of her Roytl Highness ? — Non mi ricordo. . Did you ever i-epre.sent to any one, after you had left the service of hfcr Royal Highness, that you were in a destitute condition f Never. Did you ever entreat any person ofher Royal Highness's household to hav« compassiim on your miserable situati&n ; 1 mean after you had left her Royal Highness ?— I have never been in a miserable situation. (A laugh.) Will you swear, that you never entreated any one of the suite of her Royal Highness to take pity or to have compassion on you after you had lelt her service ?— (The witness.) — " On what account to have Compassion on me?" That, Sir, is a question, and not an answer. I must have an answer to this question; will you swear thai you never entreated any one of the Princess's suite, after you had quitted her service, to take compassionuponyou?—lT May BE THAT I HAVE. Did you ever represent to any person, after you had left her Royal High ness's service, that you taxed yourself with ingratitude towards a ii»osf generous, mistress ? The Attorney-General objected to this question; but in so languid a tone of voice, that the objection was inaudible. Mr. Brougham contended, that the question was perfectly regular. The Attorney-General was proceeding to state his objection, when The Lord CltaAceUor said, " Sir, I cannot hear what you say ; speak out." Tbe Attorney-General proceeded to subrait to their Lordships, that the ques tion "put by Mr. Brougham was too general, and that it ought to be put thus : " Have you ever represented in conversation or by meriting" so and so. Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman were beard in reply to this objection. After some warm altercation, it was determined to refer the question to the Judges as follows: — " Whether, according to the established practice of the courts bciow, counsel examining are entitled, if the counsel on the othef side object to it, to ask a witness whether he has before made a representation of a matter to any one; not specifying, at the same time, whether that representation has reference lo one made in writing, or of parole." While the Judges were out. Lord Kenyan took the opportunity of moving, 6ntf for a copy of all communications between his Majesty's government and ker Majesty's advisers, on the subject of pecuniary supplies, since the raonth of June last ; secondly, for an account of all supplies of raoney raade to her Majesty since her arrival in this country. The public at large must be very aaxioiu to know what facilities had been given to her Majesty to enable her to obtain evidence; and he had no doubt these vvould be well explained bf the noble Earl (Liverpool) opposite. . He thought the papers for which he " moved, their Lordships and the public must be particularly anxious to possess at this period. The Judges, after an absence of twenty rainutes, returned, and Chief Justice, AUett delivered their opinion'. The Lord CkanceUor then informed the counsel at the bar, that he under stood they had a right to ask the witness, generally, if he had ever made any repieseutatioin ; but if they asked him the partieutar nalnre qf t%at representa- tiea, then the rules of evidence permitted the edonsel opposite to interpose, and >$k if Qte re^esentaitton allndfd to hid been made in writir^. Mr, Brougham,'— With great deferenco, my Lord!», are we to asfc the witness 54 374 TRIAL OF the: QUEE^f.- whether the representation bein writing in lhe_^«lf instance, before we under stand from hira whelher he raade ^ny representation of the kind we have alluded to? ' The Lnid Chancellor put it to their Lordships to say, whether, if the ques tion releri'td lo details, il would not be competent for the opposite counsel to ask if there had been any writing. Earl Grey was of opinion that the fair meaning of the answer of the judges vvas, that counsel raay ask the witness the general question, whether lie- had made any representation; but that, if they went into the particulars of that representation, then the counsel opposite might interpose, and ask whether it vvas made in writing. The Earl of Liverpool said he could have no objection to that course being pursued, though he did not think it precisely accorded with the view of the learned judges ; for they, if he understood their opinion rightly, suggested a division of the question into two different heads or parts, so as to raise the in terposition of the counsel opposite if it appeared that any particulair repre sentation were raade by tbe wiiness. Earl Grey said, general questions were invariably put in the courts below, and over and over again perraitled lo be answered in a general way ; for in- ,stance, a witness was often asked if he had any proraise in the event of such a contingency. It vvas never objected to such a question, that the wiiness must not answer until it was ascerlained whether the proraise had been verbally made, or in writing. Lord Erskine thought that the general question as to a representation might be put. If the witness answered in the negative, then there vvas an end to the matter ; if, on the other hand, in the affirmative, and that a second question was put to know the precise nature of the representation, then it would be open to the learned counsel opposite to inquire if it was made in writing. . By desire of the noble and learned lord, the question was read by the short hand writer. After a few words in explanation from the Lord Chancellor and Lord Erskine, • The Marquis of Lansdown suggested that the question might easily be made quite general. The Lord Chancellor asked the counsel whether they wished lo wilhdravv the question as it was now put, and substitute another of a more general nature; or whether they would follow it up by an interrogation of a more particular nature, subject to the interposition of the opposite counsel if it wereinwriting. Mr. Brougham asked whether the question would be deeraed regular if he added to it " in writing?" for instance, " Did the wiiness ever, in viriting, make any representation of the kind befoie alluded to? Lord Holland thought such a way of putting tbe question would be deeraed regular. The Lord Chancellor, repeated, that, if put in tbat manner, tbe question was at once raised for the counsel opposite. . The Marquis of Lansdown thought that an alternative was left to the coun sel to decide whether they would withdraw the question as it stood; or go on, liable to the inierposiiion. The Earl of Lauderdale said he could not see how a witness could answer to a question so generally put as whelher he had ever made a representation without defining of what description. He thought the definition had better be jpyt, andthe objection raised and depided. -. .: TRIAL OF THE QUEEK. 375 The Lord Chancellor thought a witness may answer whelher he ever made a representation. He raay answer " He could not tell — that he forgot whether he did or^no.'' He raay deny it by mistake, or through a failure of memory. Earl Grey considered the question could he put generally enough to avoid further discussion. The witness mighl be asked, " Did he ever make a repre sentation tothe Princess, ti request she might have compassion upon his forlorn situation ?" He mlsbt afierwtirds be asked if it was made in writing. The Earl of Donoughmore said, tbat on all formiT occasions the opinion of the judges, being in concurrence with that of their Lordships, was declared to counsel at their bar as near as possible in the same terms in which it was de livered by the judges. Why not pursue the same course here, without sub mitting alternatives to counsel ? Why should the question be accomraodated to this view orto that ? He wanted no accomraodation, but raerely to ascertain what vvas the law or practice upon ihe particular point. Their Lordships, of course, raight differ in opinion vvith the judges, or raight request tbe judges to reconsider their opinion; but when they concurred, the counsel ought to be apprized of the opinion without raodilication. The Lord Chancellor thought that the shortest course would be to amend the question. Lord Redesdale said a few words, the purport of which vve did not catch. The Lord Chancellor asked if Mr. Brougham wished to wiihdraw the question. Mr. Brougham wished most earnestly to withdraw the question. The Earl of Donoughmore thought that the opinion of the judges, for vyhich he had a very high respect, would be too lightly treated if the question were withdrawn. The difficulty vvhich had occurred once might occur again ; and the proper mode, as it appeared to his Lordship, would be to record the opinion of the learned judges as a rule for the conduct of the House. (Crie$ (ff" Go on, go on.") Lord Holland, after tbe observations of the noble Earl who had last spoken, could not forbear -to trouble the House wilh a few words. No doubt the duty imposed upon the learned judges vvas a duly of difiiculty ; no doubt that duty had been by the learned body raost ably discharged : but, so far frora the opinion of thejudges being the rule upon which the House was bound to act, or even a rule which they were called upon to record, it would be contrary to all rule to surrender the opinion of parliaraent to the opinion of the judges; and the House, in fact, in addressing those learned persons, asked only for the raeans of forming an opinion of its own. Their Lordships asked what was the practice! of the courts below, and then took their own opinion. Such was the regular course. True, the House had, in the course of the present proceeding, acted more than once upon the rules established in the courts below ; and very" sorry was he (Lord Holland) that the House had done so, and very sure that it would be advantageous, in future, to confine the questions addressed to the learned judges to the particular point then immediately in debate before the House. In some instances it did appear to bim ihat the opinion of those learn ed individuals had gone beyond the particular case pending at the time vyhen the opinion was demanded. But the point now under discussion, or rather the point which had been under discussion, could admit of no difficulty. , If a counsel suggested a question, wbich tbe House permitted hira, only upon cer tain terms, to put, what in the world was to prevent such counsel, if he disliked the terms, from withdrawing his tj^ue'stion?. Surely no one would contend that the House had a right to direct the particular questions which counsel should 376 TRIAt OS THI QUKEST* put 5 thatiadwsd would be taking tbe matter into thdif own hands, and acting both as judges and as quunsel, for or against the bill, with a vengeance. The noble Lord concluded by recommending to their Lordships to mix, as little ak possible of abstract law with their proceedings; but, in requiring the opinion of thejudges, to confine such opinion strictly and absolutely to tbe particular questions with reference to which they might be desired. - - Mr. Brougham was anxious to mthdvate his questimt merely to save time.* : ; Cjeoss-exam^aiian resmned. Did you ever say to any person that your conduct ta the! Prinffeas vwas liable to a, charge of ingratitude with respect to a, generousi benefactresa? — Ne,ver. is that ymr hmd-iiiriiwg-.^^iA. paper was showa to the wilnMs.)"— Yes. And that ?—CAnotbe!r paper,)— 'if ou need not read the wihola of h.-^Iti» nin imriting. Thfen, give me. them both. Here$Ir. S¥>.iz^^ extijcate them from theu embairassmeDts,. consents, to withdraw his queatiooioutbie preteooe of' " jaiitng- time .'" t Sharpers, felons, and l^igbvya^men- frequently fiftd it convenient in tbeir vocation to asfome different name;, but we iardlji ever knew^i bonesOman who fwind it necessary te h^ve more names thda one. Tbe indictments^ oficulprits-at tbe>OI4Baliley^fteq«lantlJlIIUl lhu»,; Jphn ,Brown, alias Tom l/ing,, alias BiU.SoBmea, alia& T^ree-iugeredrjaick,. aadaOiOn* Here we find- the witness in a similar nredic^ment ; \% is aUas Sac(^> aUa? Sacchini^ alias Count MlUnij aliss' somethiDg elsej wliich he-is aftaid'shwild be knowD, tot he should he putt^deathi - TRIAL OF THK QUKEW. 377 Hew much: ?<— Fifty louis. Will you swear that you had not, at any time, more money at thai bAnker'a than &fty louis ? — I had no more. Will you swear that yoo never had credit at tliat bftuker's, which allowed you to draw for greater sums ? — I never had. Did you ever saiji to any one that you had either greater cMdit or atgiicaiter sura ?— I do not remember to have ever said so. But you will not swear that you have not said so ?—! Cannot snvear when. I am in doabl. Did you not fetch Mademoiselle Dumont from Lausanne to Milan.?'— ¥e». ¦ Did yow take her ba«k ?— Noi. * . But you went lo prevail on her to go to Milan?— Only to ask her if sUb wisbed to go— vi'ould go or not. Who employed you to fetch her— to- get her ?— I was desiredi by tlie ooM» misaoM tJiieh was at Milan, When Mademoiselle Dumont went away with you to Milan,, didi yom fett any one that she was gone back, or going back, to the servicoof the Pvineets f —Never. Who did you come over with to this country ? — -Mr. Grouser Is that Mr. Crouse the gentleman who was lately arrested at Paris on a charge of dealino in FomafiEf motesIi* — I never beard speak*bf that. DM Mr. Crouse come with jmu to London^ or remain is Parisi ?-'>He carae to London.Is Mr. Crouse a regular messenger^ or is he only employed) in this Milan eommission business? — I do not know. Have ymi made any other journeys with Mr. Grouse ? — Never.. How much money did you get frOm the Milan commission for youu troixli^ while you were at Milan?— I have received no- other sum except for tha ex pense of ray journey to Lausanne and back, and for the other journey v«hicl£ I took to Charnitz and back. Do you raean to swear that you have received no promiseof any sum from the Milan commission for your troublel— I ccm- swear never io have received any promise. Do you mean to'swear that you have never received a- promise of necom- I I -¦¦ ..-- — .. — -- — — -— .. — • The follomng account of tliis virtuous agent of the conspiracy appeared' I'n the Ttmei, Sept. 6. •* Among the iiidiriduals attached to the Milan commission there was one called Crouse, He held the title of courier for the British eaWnet, but, as it would appear cxecntterf functions not distinctly marked by his ostensible occupation. SDmerimee be received a« order to go in search of discarded servantt-,. for tho purpose of collectings their evidence;, somefkmes b&aanunenced hi&operati»n>.in thecantraLspot of the examinations of these soi-disant-aye- witnesees, and sometimes he was despatched from Milan lo London, carrying the resulk of tUese infamous proceedings. On this journey He usually passed tllroiigb Paris. N*)t sarisfltrf ^Irthe comiderable pay which he received', whaH didJlJlis trieJci/ Wnalie do ? Why, beitooH advantage ef some, days' stay at Paris to utter forged. Bmh,of Englandnates, One of rojf fiends, who was. the. victim of his kna/very for a, large sum> denounced him to justice. Mr. CroMfr.was arrested and thrown into prison at Paris. In the examination of his papers probf was found of his crime. Many fbrged" noter, similar to those which hcliad'sold, were-tbuild opon him. He had ttteaddterato-destl-ovr a considerable quantity of ilienu before his arrest. The agents whom he employed to dispose of those forged notes declaied that Itiey) saw /orgp ywteto-ofi them. in, his. possession.. In &Bei, taken Jiagrarite deHeto, he would infaUiBlj iKive I'pwttct) ?hf QucBB' of Ehgland 378 TRIAI- OF THE QUEEKT. pense from any person for ypUr trouble in this business? — I dan swearnever to have received any promise. Do you mean to swear that you have never received any promise from any; jierson of any advantage of any sort ? — I have never asked for any thing, nor has any thing been offered to me. ¦ I do not ask if you have asked for any thing, or if any thing has been offered to you ; but if any promise bas been made to you of any sort of ad-^ vantage ? — No one has ever promised me any thing. Have you ever said to any one that you had received any thing, or any- pronilse of any money or advantage ? — I have never said to any person thait I had received any n'oney or advantage. I may have said that I had received the expense of my journey. Do you expect to receive nothing more than those expenses for your trou ble in tliis business ? — I hope that my time will be paid for. Have you ever seen Mademoiselle Dumont since she came to this country ? —Many times. Have you seen any of the other witnesses here ? — No. Re-examined by the Attorney-General. Where does your family live ?. — My family now resides at Broglio. Were you ever in tbe army ? — Ten years. Several years. ' In what army did you serve ? — In the army of Italy. • Whose army? — Buonaparte's army. The army of the kingdom of Italy, headed by Buonaparte. What rank did you hold in the service when you quitted it? — Lieutenant of cavalry. When were you made lieutenant of cfivalry ? — On the 6tb of September, 1 803, on the field of battle. At the tirae when you left the service of the Princess, did you receive from her Royal Highness a certificate of your character? — 1 did. ' Have you got it about you? — Yes. [The vvitness produced a paper.] " Is it signed by the Princess herself, in her own hand-writing? — When it was given lo me I was told that it had been signed by the Princess. Have you ever seen the Princess write ? — Non mi ricordo. , Have you ever seen any letters written by her ? — Mr. Brougham objected to the question. T)o you know who sealed this paper ? whose seal is it ? — I have seen the seal upon the letters of the Princess. Who gave you that certificate ?— Schiavini. Tlje Attorney-General proposed to read the character. Mr. Brougham, rather for the sake of regularity than that he cared a rush abbut the paper, objected. The certificate had in no way been brought home to the Princess. " It was received," said the learned gentleman, " from Schiavini." Non constat viho v/as Schiavini. It had upon it a seal (of which, by the way, the impression is now entirely effaced) ; and tbe witness has seen the same seal upon letters which he has carried to the post. Non constat that it was the seal of the Princess. Non constat who put the seal, whatever it was, upon the paper. The Attorney-General, submitted that the evidence was this :— The paper, sealed with the seal with which the Princess was used to seal her letters, had been given to the witness by Schiavini ; and it would be found upon the minutes of their Lordships, p. 362, that Schiavini was the person who used to give characters to the domestics. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 379 The following question and answer were then rend from the minutes:— " When the servants quitted the service of her Uo al llii-hness, did any per son in her household usually give them characters ?.— Severn I times it was Count Schiavini. The Lord Chancellor. — That evidence may, or may not, apply to the lime at which this witne-s received his character. 'Be-examination resumed. — That paper, you say, was given to you by Schia vini ? — Yes. Is the body of the certificate written by Schiavini ? — Yes. At the time— about the lime — you received that certificate, - was Schiavini the person who uns in the habit of giving ch.iiacters to the servants who left the service of tbe Princess ? — Mr. Brougham suggested, as an im|irovement on the question, " What was, at that time, iho situation of Schiavini?" Whatsiiuatum did Schiavini fill in the service of the Princess ? — Marechal di Palazzo. When servants quitted the service of the Princess, did any person in the household commonly give tliem a character? — I have seen none but Majochi receive his certificaie, and that was given to hlra^by Schiavini. Had Schiavini the office of Marechal di Palazzo at the tirae when he gave you that certificate ? — He had. Did you apply for it to hun ?— I did not. How long before you left ihe service of the Princess did Majochi quit it? f — Majochi went away before rae. How long before ? — I do not reraeraber. Nearly how lung ? -About two months. The Attorney-General subraitted, that he was now in a situation to read the paper. - Mr. Brougham submitted, that the Attorney-General had not carried the thing one step farther. Lord Erskine said, that the situation of ?chiavini would not entitle him to grant certificates without the insi ructions of the Princess. A number of questions and answers were then read by tbe short-hand-writer, and Mr. Brougham contended tbat ibat part of the witness's answer, in which' he had said that he had been told by Schiavini that the paper was signed by the Princess, should be expunged. - The Lord Chancellor. — Certainly, what tha wiiness was told cannot be evi dence. The better way would be to call some one to prove the hand-writing of .the Princess. ' Tbe Attorney-General thought that if he could prove ber authority given, it would be suflicient The evidence of tbe wilne.ss, joined to that which had been read from the minutes, laid, he conlendeil, a prima facie case that Schia- vinifilled such a situation as empowered him to give characters to ihe servants.' :-^T. Brougham would raerely request their Lordships lo look ai the seal 'upon which the Attorney-Gen. -ral was pleased to rely. The eye was out of the question, but not even wilh a microscope could any one discover the im pression which the wax had borne, rhere vvas a piece of wax, and something like two circles upon it ; hut what those circhs raeant it was quite impossible Ih) conjecture. . Besides, there was no evidence to show tbat the seal had been affixed by the Princess. The Alfopiey-General had not very good eyes; but he thought the impression on the seaf was sufficiently obvious. 380 XB-tAi. OF THE ftUtESr.. TbeXiOr^ii CAflWCfiSor.— Will you allow us, Mr. Brougham, to look at the seal ? jyjr. Brovgham.-^Most certainly; but, even if it were the seal of the Prin cess, I should still obJ£ct to it as evidence. Mr. Denman observed that there was no evidence that the seal had not been 4@!uj^ by tho witness himself. , After some further argument from the Attorney-General, who submitted that be had made out a priina fade proof that the certificate was signed by order of her Majesty, the House decided that the evidence was not sufhcient, and accordingly it was not read. . Do you know whether the Mariettia were the Princess's bankers at Milan ? -r^l know they once were so. You said that about two months ago one of the Mariettis called upon yoa ? Upon that occasion did he state for What purpose he called upon you 1 ¦ Mr. Brougham objected : no conversation between Marietti and the witness could be evidence, unless the House meant to lay it down as a rule that be cause a person was a banker to the Queen, all be said on any subject at any tiroe was evidence against her. The Attorney-Qencral observed, that the question he had put arose directly QHi of the cross'exaroination. By order of the Lord Chancellor, the short-hand writer read the evidence of the witness during the cross-exaraination on this point. The .^(torney-^efieral then submitted, that as Mr. Brougham had asked as to a portion of a conversation between the vvitness and Marietti, ho was en titled to obtain the vvhole of it. Mr. Brougham argued, that all that the witness had said was, that he told Marietti that he was to be a witness against the Queen, but it did not appear that Marietti bad spoken one word to the witness on that occasion. If any doubt existed as to what had passed, and further explanation were necessary, the case would be different. By the desire of several Peers, the evidence of tha wiiness on this subject w?is again read. The Lord Chancellor said, that vvhat was to be staled by the witness as the observation of Marietti, must be relative to the subject matter of this incpiiry, and it must have passed at the conversation wherein the witness said that he was to appear against the Queen. Mr, Rroughatn admitted that the vvitness might be asked what led to bit re- ^ly that he was to give evidence on this occasion. Lord £r«Atne concurred in the view taken by the Lord ChanceUor ; what the witness had said on the- occasion alluded to might be tbe consequence olseme qtjestion by Marietti, hut that did not yet appear. The Earl of JQH!i«rpsoif wished for the opinion of the judges on the point whether the vvhole of the conversation between tbe witness and Marietti ought not now to be given in evidence. He did not presume himself to offer any 4eci$ioq. The Lord Ckmeellor added, that, assuming that part of a conversation had been given in evidence, the Altorney-Oenerat had a right to have the whole of tlvjt conversation on the minutes. By bis Wdship's erdevthe notes of the short-band writer were road « third tinrfe. ¦ IdOrd EnJanet fud,' that it tpipftMd orv the tiotes m«rely as the remark by the witness, that he was to give evidence, and net tb»l ||lamtti h«* pwt any TRIAL OF THE QUIiF„N.. 381 question leading lo such an answer. For ,ii,iy thing that stooxl on' the cross.- examination Marietti might have been dumb. The Attorney-General then moulded his question ll'ius, Mr. Brougham slating that he did not object to il ; — . On vvhat occasion did you tell Marietti that you were a witness against the Queen ? — ^On the occasion that he came to pay rae a visit two months ago at my lodging. What was it that made you slate that to Marietti ; had nothing passed to iflduce you to state that to Marietti ? — Marietti said to me that before became he had beard Mr. Broiiglmm interposed, and insisted that the witness h.id said nothing in his cross-examination leading to such an explanation as he was about to give. It was nol because A. B. had told Marietti something, that il was to be made evidence against the Queen. Marieiti might have been dumb, as had been remarked, for any thing tbat the witness had staled in his cross-examination. Mr. Denman further enforced this objection, contending that the answer formerly given by the vvitness required no further explanation, which forraed the only reason for allowing more questions to be put on re-examination. The Attorney-General fully allowed that all questions on re-examination must aiise out of something said on the cross-examination: for this reason the question he had put vvas perfectly regular : the vvitness bad told Marietti .that he was to give evidence against the Queen, and vvhat he (the Attorney-Gene ral) wished to know was, whal Marietti had said to lead the wiiness to give him that inforraation. He vvould not waste tirae by arguing at length a matter in itself so clear. The Lnrd Chancellor. — You have a right, as it seems to me, to ask any ques tions relating IO that topic during that conversation. The Attorney-General put the following question : — Did any conversation take place between you and Marietti at that time re lative to your being a vvitness on the present occasion ?-— Marietti came to me inthe morning, and told rae that another Marieiti had told hira that Mr. Brougham's brother, brother to the counsel for the Queen, had desired hira, and as Mard Chancellor. — My opinion Is, that the question is put too gene rally in any vvay of arguing the subject. Why do you not ask— " Did Ma rietti say any thing, and what, to you at that time, with respect to your being witness against the Queen ?'' (Hear.) The Attomey General put it as directed, and Mr. Brougham took the objec tion he had already a;gued. Mr. Denman subraitted that the wiiness could be asked as to no part of the cxmversation between him and Marietti, after the latter had been lold ihat the former was a witness^ against ihe Queen. The Attorney-General then put the following questions: — Before you stated to Marietti .that you were a witness, had he said any thing more than you have already siate.i > — No. On your saying that you were a wiiness, did Marietti raake any and what observation on thai subject ? — Mr. Brougliam, — To that we object. What Marietti said cannot touch Ihe Queen, unless agency be first estabhshed. The Earl of Liverpool suggested tbat the decision of thejudges ought to be taken. The Lord Chancellor said, that the judges could not mistake Ibe point on vvhich their opinion was required ; but he believed that it would be necessary tha.they should be assisted by the short-hand writer's notes of the part of the cross-examination relating to the point. With ihem they raight be furnished to-night ; and as the hour of adjournraent was close at hand, it might be as well, perhaps lo postpone the subject until to-morrow morning Earls Grey and Lauderdale concurred, but wished the question to be dis tinctly stated lo thejudges, and not that they should frame a question for theraselves from the short-hand notes. The Lord Chancellor did not think that any difficulty on this subject would arise after what had already passed. Great care ought to be taken in framing the question, and he would prepare himself for the purpose by to-morrow morning. After a single remark from Lords Holland and Erskine, which vvas not ijudible, ]rhe House adjourned at a fe-yv minutes before five o'clock. EIGHTEENTH DAY.— Wednesday, September ff. A little before ten, the Lord Chancellor look his .sf.il ; and pra>ers being read, Lord Kenyon rose to recal the attention of their LonUhips to the sub ject of wbich he had given notice yesterday- ^'he noble Lord concluded, by moving for papers to the following effect :—'l. Copies of all comniunlca. tions which have taken place hetween hi>^ Majesty's goveriunenl and her Ma- jesty!s advisers, touching pecuniary supplies, since the moiiili (if June last. J2, An account of all sums of raoney paid to her Majesty since her ai rival in this country.* It will be recollected that on Mr. Brougjiaiii's recently intiHialing that the cause carrying 384 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. I Lord King objected to ihe raotion, on account of its being too liiniicd. It might be very proper in so far as it went to disclose the expenses for one "^ide, but what be most wanted to know was the expenses of the proceediiigs alto gether. The noble Lord concluding by suggesting an amendment, embracing the expense- of the whole pro ceding. The Earl of Liverpool opposed the motion, on the ground of the difficulty of jiroducing the accounts at llie present stage of the prosecution. The Lord Chancdlor suggested, that, for the words " her Majesty's advisers," " ber Majesty's counsel and agents" should be substituted. Lord Kenyon agreed to this amendment, and thequeslion was put on the first motion so altered. The Lord Chancellor said the contents had it, but a noble Lord (we believe Lord Lauderdale) said he thought the non-contents had it, and a division con sequently took place. The numbers were — Contents- - 133— ^on-contents- -73 — Majority- 'So The second motion vvas agreed to without a division. when strangers were re-admitted, the Lord Chancellor was recapitulating what had occurred yesterday on the questions put to \he w'xXness, Giuseppi Sacchi, relative to what had passed between him and the banker, M. MorieMi. His Lordship, having considered the subject, wished to simplify ihe question to be put to th judges, by reducing it to a form vvhich was nearly to the fol lowing efl'ect: — If, on the trial of an action brought by A. the plaintiff, ayaifist B. the defendHnt, a vvitness on the part of the plaintiff, on the cross- examination of the defendant's counsel, had stated, jj*— answer to a question, . that, at a time specified, he-had told C. D. that he was one of the witnesses against the defence; and, being re-e.\araincd by tbe plaintiff's counsel, should be asked if C. D. had inquired into his reasons for becoming a witness agahist the defend-ant, and the counsel for the plaintiff should then proceed further to examine the wiiness as to what passed between him and C.'Dl as f r only as related lo his conduct; tho question vvas, whether, according to the eslablished rules of the courts below, the counsel for the plaintiff would be entitled so to re-examine this witness ? On this question, and on questions as to the right of examining the witness on what had passed between him and C. D. before or after the witness had stated himself to be a witness for the 'defence, ha thought it might now be right to ask the opinions of thejudges. The judges iminediately withdrew. Mr. Brougham was always unwilling tcj complain of the public press, but in one of the prints of that morning a charge was brought forward against a near relation of his, founded on the foWowing misrepresentation of what ihe' witness (Sacchi) had said, in answer to a question from the Attorney-General. The question asked was — " Did any convefsatioiv lake place between the witness and Marieiti, relative fo his being a witness agajj^st the Queen ?"— ^The pre- on against the Queen w as 'it\ a'more thriving condition ihan that of her Majesty, with respect to pecuniar y meaiis, Lord Li-verpool expressed surprise at such a remark, inasmuch as Mr. Brougham kneio that ynlimited rt'Siiurces were placed al the Queen's disposal in order lo carry throaE;h her defence, and ilial even ten thousand pounds had Just been granted, oh the signing' of a certificate b\ hei .Majesty's Couiisftl that sucli a sum was necessary fur brhighig forward «»itnesses Aliec Itiis aver eiit by the noble Lurd the public learnt with >urprise, from a statement ni the Tniveller, tl.ai, bo far from ihis sum having been advanced, even the appli cation Io ihe Treasury, or the arnv.-il there of ihe cerlificate oflicially coramunlcaling the want of money on ihe pat of her Majesty's legal advisers, has not yet been acknowledged ; and those geriilenieii only learned ihat their certificate vvas received at the Treasury by the publication df (he document in fhe Tfeasury.jou'rnals. TRTAL OF THE QUEEN. 385 tended answer — " When he told Marietti that he was going as a witness against the Princess, Marietti told him that Mr. Brougham, brother to her IWyal Highness's counsel, had said he would bestow favours on those who would not go." — So that by this fals- statement of uliat the witness luid answered, bis (Mr. Brougham's) brother was charged wilh having tampered with witnesses; and this journal dealt with thai lioiuurable relation of his as any person de served to be dealt wiih who was really desirous of so tampering with witnesses to be produced at their Lordships' bar. But iiothing like this was said. He referred their Lordships to the minutes of the evidence: it was only said that " that person (iMarietii) had been with Sacchi in the morning, and told him that Mr. Broughara, brother to the counsel for the Queen, had-desired him to go; and as Marietti considered himself to be under sorae obligations to him and his brother." Here he (Mr, Brougham) had himself interrupted thp vvitness: the fact was, that Marietti was going to ask hira something else — namely, what Sacchini had to say for hiraself ? Now, he did raean to ask, whether a raore gross and scandalous raisrepreseulation of a plain fact had ever been made before in any court of justice ? lie could only hope that, if (heir Lordships should be of opinion with himself that this matter required ex aminalion, they would enable him to go into an examination of a point which he (Mr. Brougham) yesterday, not knowing the full extent of human malig nity, did require should not come under discussion." That objection he now solemnly begged to waive; and was earnestly desirous that the matter should be probed to the bottom, in any manner which might be judged the most sure and open. For himself, he would say,^ that he never saw Marietti until i October last. He only requested to waive, in this Instance, his privilege of of parliament, and that their Lordships would deal with him exactly as they would wilh others who had it not. All that he was apprehensive of on the occasion was their Lordships not going into this inquiry. He had now only to state one circumslahce, if any were wanting for that purpose, in order to cor- roborale the fact that this was a gross falsehood. It was, that he himself had put into the hands of one- ofhis Majesty's ministers, who had to sustain, undrjubt- edly, a most anxious part in these proceedings — he himself had put into the hands of a noble Earl (Liverpool) a lelter from Marietti the falher, in which he mentioned the circumstances of young Marietti's having gone lo see Sacchini. The fact was expressly mentioned ; and he (Mr. Brougham) was not very sure that this particular circumstance, of one of the Queen's counsel openly placing such a lelter in the bands of one of his Majesty's ministers, had imt -'een the origin of the unfounded charge against him. "The object of that leltei; was to express the fears of M. Marietti, the father, that from the unhandsome conduct of Colonel Brown in all these transactions, the conduct of young Marietti might be the cause of his being sent out of fhe country. The noble Earl, be was happy to say, very handsomely, and in tbe kindest rnaniipr, H'li<'ved all M. Marietti's fears, if he had any, and informed him that uhnt he appreiirnded^ should not be done. He said M. Marietti's fears, if he had any, because thos6 who knew the character and mind of that noble Earl well would-never have entertained them. .Ml this he mentioned only to shmv that he had himself told the Earl of Liverpool that young Marietti had gone to Sacchini, as un^ doubtedly he had a right to do, and as it was his duty to c. &c. " Your affectionate Father." The public will recollect that when the renewal of the Alien-Bill was moved fpr by Jlinis- tcrs, its misapplication lo base purposes, such as sending the Queen's witnesses out of tlic ¦countt-y, or preventing their arrival, was foreseen,- and this objection against the renewal ul .the aci was strongly urged by Lord Holland. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN'. 387 if he had any knowledge of the fact, It must have been through olher channels. If he (the Earl of Liverpool) never had had any lelter, he should have pursued thesame course. Lord Me/ri//f then rose. - It having been stateil, without any authority, in a public print, that the Lords of the Admiralty had sent for two officers of the navy, in order to put questions to them, he should wish to slate what was the real case, and wilh what view any proceeding of the kind had taken place. It did so bappen, tbat vvith a view of bringing forward evidence, as to tbe resi dence of persons in different parts of the world, the professional gentleraen re tained iu support of this bill bad from time to lime raade applications to ihe A^iralty to know wheie certain individuals in the navy resided, and where- thmf were to be got at. In acceding to those applications, in acting as ihey had done, the Lords of the Admiralty had done no more than their duty ; not to have so done, in fact, would have been a great dereliction of their duty. He would go further, and say, that if any other applications of a similar nature had been or should be made by the professional gentleraen retained against the bill, their Lordships would feel it to be equally their duty to comply with them. It also so happened, that one of those persons whom it was wished to •produce at their Lordships' bar, was an English seamen, in his Majesty's ser vice, and had been on board of a certain polacre of which noble Lords had heard so much. Within the last two months the same man was on board one of his Majesty's ships. This had been ascertained by reference to the naval department; but what had become of hira since was not known. He had no hesitalion ihsaying that it had occurred to him (Lord Melville) to send for two British naval officers, who were also on board the polacre, as thinking that they might happen to know where that seaman could ho found. Me therefore felt it his duly to desire ihat they might be sent to the Admiralty in order-to be asked that single question. That sii.gle question was all they were asked ; at least he raight take upon hiraself to slate, that (he ])erson or persons who saw them, unless they had acted quite contrary to his (Lord Melville's) special injunction, had done no raore. Lord Erskine felt rauch gratified at the land.some explanations of the noble Earl and the noble Lord who had just spoken ; but he was quite sure that the learned counsel had reason to complain of the raisrepresentatioii, and raeant to impute nothing unhandsorae in another quarter. The Lord Chancellor. — It did appear, from a reference fo the printed notes of evidence taken by the shorl-hand writer, that the i(publIcation which had been complained of was by no raeans, in many places, consistent with the evidence which had been given. With respect to representations and misrepresentations which were to be found in the public prints, he trusted that their Lordships would excuse hira for now taking the liberty of saying, that if their Lordships 'bad chosen to waive their privileges with respect to such publications, they raust yet insist that they should be rainutely correct. Whatever raight have ¦been the coraplalnts with respect to some other publications that had gone forlh to the world, or whatever mighl be intended respecting them, their Lord ships would be hereafter called upon to consider. At present it did not appear expedient to enter upon the subject,* " That the Chancellor should feel a little indulgent towards the Hforning- Post is very natural ; •for it has blown both hot and cold for his Lordship. In 1806, when Lord Eldon was llie Queen's legal adviser, this infamous journal extolled her virtues to the skies ; but in 182U, fullowiug tlie varying interests of its patron, it now ascribes to her Majesty all that is infiuiuus and base. 388 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The judges, having remained apart nearly two hours in consultation, re* turned at ten minules before one o'clock. , All the judges present, with the exception of Mr. Justice Best, gave their opinions in the negative. After some observations from Lord Erskine and Lord Redesdale, the Lord Chancellor said, my Lords, shall I infprm counsel that they ought not to put the particular qu6^,lion as follows :»rr." On yoursayi- ing thai you were a witness, did Marietti make any observarion ?" It being decided that this instruction should be given to the counsel, they vvei-e called in, and apprized that they must not put the question last submitted to the witness. The wiiness was then recalled,and the Attorney-General resumed his re-exitminatum. The witness has stated that, when be first came here, he assuraed the name of Milani; I wish to ask why he assuraed tbat name? — ^^I took ihis name on account of the tumult which then took place, and the danger that 1 should run if niy own name was known. When did you assume that narae ? — Immediately after the business, or the affair, that happened at Dover.' You stated tbat you took an oath when you made your deposition : when was that f — I do nol remeraber the day exactly, but it was about two months For what purpose vi'ere you sworn to that deposition?- — Mr. Brougham here suggested that the better way would be to ask the wit ness on wliat occasion be took the oath. The witne.ss answered — It was proposed to me by the advocate Powell. For what purpose did he propose it to you ? — He told rae— Mr. Brougharrihere submitted to their Lordships whether the question could be put consistently with tbe decision that their Lordships had already Arrived at. If this question was not evidence, for the sake of regularity and the rales ofevidence let it be rejected. He felt how a counsel was exposed to the im putation of wishing to conceal a truth, that a witness might disclose in his answer, when he interposed an objection of this nature. In the courts belovv the Judges would relieve him from this difficulty by slopping the question as irregular. The Lord Chancellor. — Can any body doubt that the occa^oft on which he vvas sworn was to makehim a witness'? The question being again put to thewitness, he answered-^He (Mr. Powell) told me that he had r^eived a letter from Lord Liverpool, who thought it necessary he should be sworn. "^Mr. Brougliam said he had made the objection after the first three words wed by the vvitness. The remainder ofhis answer showed how necessary it was lh;it he should have interposed at that moment, for it disclosed not only l-bflt the witness was giving .in evidence what Mr. Powell told him, but also xviiat Lord Liverpoid wrote to Mr. Powell. ~ The Lord Chancellor said, that Mr. Broughara was right to take his objec tion whenever it best suited him, but that their Lordships could not shut out the answer given by the witness. The Attorney-General maintained, that this question was-regular, Did he .state any thing more of tbe purpose for which xhu deposition would be used? — He added nothing else. The -Aitomcy-General bene staled, that he hatl no further questions to ask the witness. Earl Grosvenor then examined him. Tn,I|A>r. QS, TU,E QUEKX. 389 T,ho. witness, lifl,j.s{ated, tl^^tjip, w.i,s in, the, army,; ha*, hci;anj? pt^y as.such? — I have no pay. , WhcA h« "as. di^plwirged from the, army, in vyhich he; h^idi been serving, did he offer his services to any other government — I niea,n, as, a spldifr?— Afffjf three years, I asfied lobe taken into the service of &wllzprland, vyhich had caftilUilaied to grant|Cororaissiou5 to tbe army of France. "The alls. \cr, as read by the short-hand writer, after sorae e.xpl^natipvi bq^ tweeii the interpreter ai\d witness, was, " whiqb, had capitulated to f'Hroish troops to the King of Fiance." What answer did you get to that application ?— As I asl^ed for- the^ s^me i^HJnas an officer which, 1 had before held in Italy, they, answered- they had "" v^Canq^'. Did they offer you any inferior situation?— Yes, they offered. rae. thptTfij^ ef sergeatit. Is it customary with persons in the situation vyhich, yow filled in th? service of| the Princess to draw the curtajns without perrais^i^pn, particularly in thp case of persons of the rank, of ber Royal Highness ?r— Every morning I vyas ill (he habit of going to the carriage of her Royal Highness to see if sh.e-hEvd orders /or me; sometimes I found the curtains shut, spmqtiraes open. I ney^ vvas told by the Princess th^t I had done wrong. Earl Grosvenor. — The witness has described hiraself as having been It?t <;pi?ii-: pany with a person calling herself Countess Colombier. (Cries of " No, 1)9.") He came to England with Madame De Mont and Mr. Crouse. Crouse vvasa friend of Madame De Mont; vvas the witness also a friend, p.f Madame De Moijt i [The form of the question was objected to ]; Does the witness Jiiiow that Crouse. was a frieaid of Mad. De IVjIpnt ? — / have never tried to search into the affairs of otherpeople. Do you know whetherCroi^se wa? or was not a friend of Madame De Mpiit ? —J. do not kaovv. Were you a friend, of Mad. De Mont Prr-I have known her In the house cf 1^ ^riucess. . . Do you know whether she assumed the namei of the Counteiss Colombiei; in tsPfldon? — 1 knpw that she has. assumed; the name, of Colombier, but never tljiP name of Countess. Did she, not assume the nam.e of Counless Colombier in Frith-street f and di4 sii^,e nftt pass by it in Oxford-street ?— I never kn^w her assume the n^e pf Gpuntess, You have said, that you have assumed different names at differept limps— on? flame, ainong the rest, the exposure of which might lead you into difficulty. I wish to know whether, exclusive of that particular name by which you now fD.and the disclosure of which you think might bring you into difficulty, you ave any objection to inform the House of the number of names whichyOu h(^e •mmed, within the hist, tejiym^?- (A laugh,)— I h^ve never changed my name before I changed it for the last two times. The Earl of Kingston.— Yo\i have stated, ip ypu? cross-exan»ination, that J(«!U were pot pffpred any nugipey to induce yQU to comg here lo give your evidence; have you been offered any money by any person, or bas any perspn ?nd^aVQiir*(J tq B^iiade^ you npt tp gree you.r en^em^ since yon J^^ve arrived in Pngl^pd ?ttNo pw has ever ^igidP W any prpjniSP P? waey ; and w.Pne b6 390 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. has ever «ndcavoured to dissuade me from coming, because I h.ive never communicated this thing to any one^ Tho Marquis of Buckingham. — How long have you known Marietti? — Since my arrival in London'. Is he a banker at Milan ? — 1 knew, at Milan, the family of Marietti. Are they bankers? — It is said they are bankers ; bul I have never had busi- ' ness with them. Who is this Marietti whom vou say you knew in London ?— -I have known the three brothers Marietti. Jn London ? — ^Yes. You have staled iu your exaraination, that one of the Mariettis knew of your being a witness in this case? — I hav^e said, that Marietti knew I was a witness when I told him so. Did any one of the Mariettis whom you knew in London raake any propo-^ sition lo you touching the evidence which you were to give in this case^? — 'Giuseppe Marietti came to my lodging one day, and told me that he wanted to speak lo me ; and he told me, that he was directed by Mr. Brougham, the brother of the Attorney 'General of the Queen, who had called upon him in the morning, and inquired if he knew me, He-^ Marietti) answered, that he did know me, and then the brother of Mr. Brougham asked him, whether he raight be able to learn from me something relating lo the Princess. Marietti added, as the Messrs. Broughams had done niS some services while I had sorae trans actions with the Princess, so I should like to do. thera also sorae service; but, before I communicate to you what 1 have got to say, I beg to tell vou that I corae as a-friend, and not to dissuade you from doing what you have resolved on; having also represented to Mr. Brougham, that I vvould not either corarait myself, or wish that the parties should commit theraselves.'' And ho added, " As the ministers have' refused to grant a list of the witnesses, orof the beads of the charges against the Queen, we should like to know something from you, if you know any of the witnesses, if you know their number, and if ¦you can inform us any thing of the depositions which they are to make." Then I ansvvered, that although I knew something, I would never tell it, for^ that it might commit me; that I knew only one of the witnesses; that I knew no de position of any other witness, and that I could give him no other account. Marietti added, that it was wished to know so much, because the Queen might prepare her own defence. Afterwards he asked me- whether I migbt know soraething concerning the depositions, and gavre me various assurances that he did nol wish to know this frora me to commit me, or to corarait any of the parties. I remember no raore. Did Marietti give you any advice as to the evidence which you were at any time to give? — Never, Did Marietti offer you any raoney with respect lo the evidence you were to give .' — Never. The Marquis of Buckmgham would very readily put to the witness any question which the Attorney-General of fhe Queen might suggest. Mt. Brougliam felt much indebted to the noble Marquis : but Ac had no reason io be dissatisfied with the answer of the witness, although perhaps athevs might. ¦ Earl Grey. — Have you ever gone by the name of Milani before you came to England ?¦— •! took that name in Paris, four pr five days before I set out for Eug-land. . . ^ ' TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ggl When did y6u set out for England i—In July of ihe last year.* Be so good as to say what was your motive for taking that name, at that time, in Paris?— After I knew that I was known in London, by my own name I tried to shelter rayself against any thing which raight happen to me. What tumult had happened at that time which induced you to take that name?— I was warned that the witnesses against the Queen raight have run some risk. If they had been known. Had you been inforraed that they actually had run any risk ? — They had not had any raischief. . ' What did you mean by saying, that, « in consequence of the tumult which had happened," you took that name I Whatdidyou mean by that statement? A Peer desired that the former answer of ihe witness^ in which he had made that statement, mighl be read to hira. Some confusion, occurred in consequence of a delay in referring to the former answer. Earl Grey insisted that the question should be put in his own words, vvilhr out reference to the former answer; and he would take the sense of the House upoD it. The answer referred to vvas then read :— " I took thai name in consequence of ihe tumult which took place, and the danger I should run if my name vvere known. The Lord Chancellor. — Was the Italian word used for " tumult" put down? The Interpreter (Marchese Spinetto). — My Lord, I then raade use of the -word " tumulto," as I have done now. The question vi-as then put in the following words : — Having slated that at Paris you changed your narae to Milani, in conseqjience of the turault which took place, what did you mean by that statement? — While I was at Paris, a gentleman carae, accompanied by the courier Crouse ; and this gentleman (it was tbe first time I saw hira, and I have seen him no more) told rae that it would be necessary for me to change my name, because it would be too dan gerous to come to England under my own narae, as I had told hira I was ¦known in London under my name. Did he say that a tumult had taken place? — He told me of some disorder. On what occasion did he say that that turault or disorder had taken place? — He told me no more. I understand you* to say that it was in respect of other persons: what do 'you mean by other persons ? — I meant to say that some disorder had already taken place in respect to other persons on the same account — for similar causes. What do you mean by " sarae account" and " similar causes ?"-i-I have repeated vvhat the geutleraan told rae. Did you understand that it referred to v^Itnesses who had corae to give evidence in the case of the Queen ? — I believe it was for this purpose. • Just above, in reply to a question from the Attorney-General, he said, he " changed his name on account of the tumult which then took place." From this answer, which no doubt he had been instructed to give, the Attorney General, doubtless, wished tbe House to under stand that Sacchi had changed his name from an apprehension of experiencing the same treat ment that the Dover witnesses had sustained about six weeks ago. We see, however, how all these contrivances of the King's Counsel are blown up by the answer to Earl Grey. .It now appeals that so far from the fellow having changed his name in consequence of the Dover tuninlt, be had assumed the name of Milani in J.uly last -year, more than twelve months before even the name of Italian yritnesses had been heard of in this country. 3S'S; TIMAJ^ OJ"' THI> aUEEN. Did yOu know thait-anyviiitneasesvbadiat,: that, time Wwnef^Qver t^^igiy^.tljeir cwhiencesittithe oaais® of theQueea?-— L did, not knowcertainlye.buft. injthe sameiway thatil was Coming; I thought it prohabl* tba.t( . oth?rs,i|»ight hwe come. It was Iniconsequeoce'ofi having- beea sent: for thflii you, came :at;tha5ti time tpb England ?•— Precisely. Where did you lodge when you first came to. Eogland?-^Ift l;eifesjlf«- square,. at Sablonniere's.hoteL How long did you continue there? — About a fortnlghti Where: did you then go to?-~To- Arundel-streati How Idng did, you bear the name of Milani^^^Untilithe ^ffaij of Qovieit happened. It was then you changed it, and not before?— ^Not-b^ore**- Th« Earl of Dariingtort.^What '^a& the- reason of your^ being. dischtH^ed" from the service of the Princess? — There was a difference whiphi, had;^ith the confectioner. Who was the person who discharged you ?-^Schiafvini sent for mejij tfc^ morning, and said tbat he had received orders from the Princess to set rjip^at liberty, to discharge rae. I think you said that you had lived vvitha Mr..GiOdfrey,5ii|Pe-yPH;C94B^tP England ? — Yes. I wish -to know who Mr. Godfrey was; of what profession ; afld, in.what capacity you were employed by him ?— -As I was ill in London, I sought; after a place in the country, where I might, go to re-estoblishj my health ; stpdit wasT proposed to me to hve with Mr. Godfiey. You have spoken of balls which took place at the Bwona. : I wish to h^pw whether those balls took place before the Princess w«nt lo Turin ?--^5iom.e of tbem before. Do you remember; at Turin, the King and Queen of Sardinia,, or, either cM states that on tto Ba^tf qftiw h* l«ft of MUim atAi^mtmi wme other deagsationw W/ei earn nudie notltii^< of this. It i» dear new wku Um Csdnm ji^ w«s true,— " counwaM aiw«ysgwat Jf«m" f THIAL OF THE QUEEK. 393 I wish to know what rank yoii had when f5rst y<)u joined the army of Italy ? — Private soldier. And you were raised to the rank of lieutenant on account of your good conduct? — Yes.* Earl Grosvenor wished to ask Ono question upon th.it point. Was the wit ness acquainted with any officer who served with him in the Italian army, and who bad afterwards obtained a commission in the Swiss army of whicb the witness had spoken? — I do not know. By Viscount Falmouth. — The wiiness has stated that young wo-rnen were taken out of the ball-room al pleasure: does he recollect any instance in which they were taken out In her Majesty's presence ? — It has sometimes hap pened. Does he remeraber it happening on any one occasion? — I never made any par-' iicular observation. Did you consider yourself as entitled to mix among the company at thoe balls 1— All had the same liberty; all had equal liberiy. Then I understand you did consider yourself entitled to go ? — I did. Wereyou, or any other servant, allowed to invite your friends to those balls? — As far as I am concerned, certainly I did not : with regard to others I do not know, but I don't believe they were allowed lo invite people. Then I understand that the Princess herself, or some other person directed by her, askgd the company ? — Certainly. Ntrv I. wish to ask, with respect to your quitting her Royal Highness's ser- ¦vice, whether, at the tirae you left it, you had had any recent quarrel tvjth Bergami ? — Non mi ricordo. 'By the Eail of Laiiderdale. — Does the wiiness speak and understand the French knguage ? — I do. Was the speech which the Queen made to you in the court, when she was with Bergami, in French or Italian?— Her Royal HightieSs spoke to me always in French, Can you state, in French, the terms sho used on the "occasion alluded to ? • —Yes, her Royal Highness, being in the court, said— [Here the interprfeter gave, in French, from the mouth of the witness, that part of his testimony, given on the preceding day, in which he represented the Queen to have said ? It is worthy of remark how the Attorney-Geueral and Treasury scribes have laboured to elevate into some sort of respectability Sacchi's character. For this purpose, his services in the army of Italy, his condutt in the field, and promotion to the rank of Lieutenant of eafalry, are pushed irtto notice. Now let this be admitted-^grant the assumption— suppose the situation of this witness to be elevated as the enemies ef the Queen would wish— what is the inference ? We put the question fairly to any man alive— is it possible, is it credible, that a gmUmdn (as ffitiss Dumont calls her paramour) could, by a~ny means, be induced ?otmtarily to depose to faets of such abominable atrocity arid eiiormity as he has stated ? Must it not be /eit that the bare narfadve of such filth, hut, above all, the conlmuance ift the presence and service ot the persons to whom it is imputed, (one of these persons, too» being described as an insolent upstart,) impart some portion of their infamy and infection to the Witness himself ? Is it not therefore certain ihat credit, character, and honour, must be abandoned, and a compensation in so^ie way be looked for ? Is there any oiher Coiiipensa- tibn bat mmey ? And is a person upon whom such motive can operate to be trusted ? Is it niSt obvious that a man who would surrender his personal respectability, or any porliun of it, for any consideration would, probably, for the same or some other, inoenl and fabricate, if necessary ? Now, if this be true in the abstract, how much more probable is the conclusion Vrtieri we look at the nature of this man's evidence ? and still more when we advert to the ¦nublHSh-ing statement of his " Usy etremHslaiftclis," and consequelitlj Ins pdwet lo escape, if he pleased, from such contamination ? 57 394i TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. to him, that he (Sacchi) had been in bed with three of the young wtbmen, and that she knew how many times he had intercourse vvith them.} Mr. Brougham wished to know, whether, in speaking of the demoiselles vvith whom the witness was said to have been familiar, her Majesty used the words, " avec eux," with them, or, " avec tel," with such. The witness stated, in French, what had taken place, as he had before done ; adding, that " her Royal Highness spoke much better French than he did, but that he gave the effect of her observations. Mr. Brougham observed that this vvas an important variation. The Solicitor General wished the question and answer to be taken down in the original language. This was done by a gentleman who stood near the counsel for the bill, and the paper was handed to the witness, who denied that part of the answer wm written as he had given it. The Earl of Lauderdale said a question had been put to the witness, rela tive to a word, (and, undoubtedly, the meaning he intended to affix to a par ticular terra, was lit matter for their Lordships' consideration,) aud tbe ex pressions he was supposed to have used were taken down, and put into his hands, but, on looking at the paper, he declared that It did not contain bis answer, and, iherefore, it would be incorrect to proceed further with that point. The Interpreter observed that lie did not put down the answer. Itwas written by another person, and placed in bis hands. He was not, therefore, accountable for it. [Here, the answer of the witness, in French, was again read to blmi] By the Earl of Lauderdale. — I wish to know, if, after the Princess made that speech to you in the court, you saw her Royal Highness at similar balls with those women ? — Non mi ricordo. Did the Princess of Wales say nothing more I — Not on that occasion. Did you see those virgins at any ball at which the Princess was present, subsequent to that period ? — I cannot say what virginaks she was speaking of. I thought she spoke in a general way. Have you seen her at any balls subsequent, to that period? — There were balls. Were they attended by the same sort of company? — Nearly the sarae persons. , I wish to know what sort of carriage it was in which the Prince'ss of Wales vv'as riding when you opened the curtain. Was it a carriage in which you must sit, or was it a carriage in vvhich you might either lie or sit? — There vvere three or four carriages in her suite : soraetiraes she went out in one, soraetiraes in another, — ^but I don't recollect the particular carriage. I wish to know if you recollect the carriage in which her Royal Highness vvas in, when you opened the curtain early in the morning ? — Non mi ricordo. Had her Royal Highness more carriages, with curtains that you could open, than one ? — I believe she had two. Tn either of these carriages was it possible for a person to lie at full length ? Was it not possible for a person to lie down ? — I believe that one might lie down. Do you recollect whelher her Royal Highness and Bergami were sitting or lying at the time the scene took place which you have described ? — It appear ed to me as if ihey were sitting. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 395 Did you see whether there wns any body else in the carriage that morning ? — 1 have said non mi ricordo. I don't reraember seeing any one else. Can you sny whelher the Countess of Oldi was there f— 7 did not see herpreseni.* If, however, there was not any body else present, are you not still certain that the Princess and Bergami were sitting next to one iinother? — I have seen them one near the olher. (Here there were loud cries of " Withdraw.") Earl Grey observed, that if interruptions of this kind were suffered fo take place, they would have an effect directly opposite lo that which vvas intended. They would protract, instead of shortening, their Lordships' pro ceedings. (Hear, hear.) By the Earl of Balcarras. — Did the Princess sit on tbe right or on the left of Bergami ?— Her Royal Highness was sitliiig on the right hand of Bergaini. I would ask whether the aperture, vvhich 3'ou called the breach in the curtain, was on the right or left of your own person ? — It was on the right. By the Earl of RosSlyn, — \y hen you opened the curtain, did you ask for orders ?— No ; because they were asleep. Did you awake them ? — No ; I did not. By Lord Ccdihorpe. — I wish to know whether you asked to see the Princess after Schiavini gave you your discharge .' — I asked lo soe the Princess after I had received my certificate, the evening before I went away. Did you see her Ro^al Highness after you had received that certificate ? —No. ; Did you see her Royal Highness after you understood that you were to quit her service ? — I did. What passed on that occasion ? — Tier Royal Highness t6ld me that she gave me my discharge, in order to set an example to the other servants, that there should not be quarrels in the house. Did her Royal Highness state what the cause of those quarrels was ? — She told me because I had that quarrel with the confectioner, and she did not wish that quarrels should happen in the house. Did she state any olher cause of dissatisfaction to you ?— She did not. Did you make any reply to her Royal Highness on that occasion ? — I said to her Royal Highness that I did not believe that to be a fault sufficiently great forme to be discharged. Did her Royal Highness raake any allusion to your conduct previous to those quarrels ? Her Royal Highness had always shown her satisfaction towards my conduct. Did her Royal Highness then make to you any promise of a certificate of good conduct ? — We did not talk about certificates. The Attorney-General.— AWovi me, ray Lords, to ask one question, whe ther the vvitness knows the paper I hold in ray hand to be the writing of Schiavini. The Lord Chancellor.— \lhat is the question you have to ask ? It must be asked by a Peer. • The carriage-scene, which the witness's answers here clearly show to have been a filthy and disgusting, fabrication of his own, has a striking resemblance to the monstrous inventioa of Majochi about the Princess bathing in the tent. 396 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. The Attarney-General.—Vlheihm the witness knows that the paper which I now put into his hand vvas written by Schiavini ? ^ By the Lord Chancellor. — Is that paper the writing of Schiavini ? The wit ness, having looked at the paper, answered, as far as I know. It is the writing of Schiavjui. Have ypu seen him write? — I have also received letters from Schiavini. Have you seen hira write? — Several tiraes. Do you believe that lo be his hand-writing?— I think it is pretty certain thai it is. I am sure of it. Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, wished to know whether he was tp enter .ajTipngst lbs minutes the French explanation which the wiiness had given pf ,whatthe Princess had said in the court; and was, as we understood, answered I affirmatively. Mr. Braugham. — I wish to put a question, arising out of the addition which the ,, witness made to his forraer answer, when interrogated relative to the u.ie of a certain French word. Thequeslion is, did not the vvitupss, in answer to the following quesllon put to hira by the interpreter, nannely, " whether her Royal Highness had made use of the word eux or tel — " did he not answer nearly in these terms — Son AUesse Royale parloit beaucoup mieux Francois que moi — mais c'itoit tel effet ? The' Earl of Lauderdale opposed the question. l^e Lord Chancellor. — The vvay in which your question Is pronounced sup poses the Interpreter to be himself examining the vvitness. I apprehend the regular way would be to put a question, through a Peer,' similar to this — " Whether, when a particular circumstance was spoken of, be had answered in the way alluded to ?" Mr. Brougham hegged their Lordships' pardon ; but they did not seem to perceive the purpose ofhis examination : that purpose was, to point out a con tradiction. He would ask, first, in point of fact, whether the interpreter djd not say a certain thing to the wiiness, to which he conceived ther^ould be no objection. At all events, he hoped their Lordships vvould allow him to ask, .^yhether some particular person, no matter whether the interpreter or ajjy pne else, had not put a certain qpestion to him, to which he answered — Son AUe^se Royale parloit beaucoup mieux Francois que moi— mais c'etoit tel effet ? The Earl of Lauderdale said a few words against the admissibility of the questipn. The Lor^ Chancellor was of opinion that the witness might be examined as to any thing that had taken place«n the presence of the Court ; and that to vvhich objection was raade was a circumstance of that description. Mr. Brougham then put the question in this form : — When you were asked, a little while ago, whether her Royal Highness made use of tjie word " eux,'' or of the word " tel," did you not say, io answer, alluding to what you had previously stated in French, " Sou Altesse Royale parloit beawpup miewx Fraticoh que moi — mais c'itoit tel effet ^" The Earl of X,auderdale, as \ye understood, objected lo this mode pf asking the question, as the concluding -words were not on the minutes. In his opijiion the witness ought merely tp be asked vvhat did he say? The Lord £}umcellor^^rrr Ask arhether the witness has not s.taledj in the course of this raorning, that what the Princess said was " lo this effect?" Th? quesjt.i,bn bjejng put by the interpreter, the vvitness answered " No.''' Mr. Brougham, — I wish to ask, through pne of ypur Locd5,hipS;Wh«tbfir ihp TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. S97 v»itne.«s means to say that he used the first part of the sentence, " .Son Al{esse Royale parloit beaucoup mieux Francois que moi" — and not the last part " mt/ii ('(toil tel effet^" The question being put, the witness answered, thnt he had not used the words " muis c'etoit tel effet," (but this was the eflcci) ; bul had said, " mais ca eel le fait" (but that is the fact.) A Peer submitted to thejr Lordships whether it would not be advisable, when ft dJ)05culty arose in making the vvitness understand a question, to permit the interpreter to put It, so as to make its meaning intelligible, instead of endea vouring to translate it literally ? Another Peer objected to this mode, conceiving that the question should be put as literally as possible. The Peer who ofiered the suggestion conceived, vvhen there was a doubt that the witness did not understand the literal version, that the la.titad« which he ^oke of would be permitted by their Lordships. The question and answer vvere then, on the suggestion of the Duke of Cla rence, read by the short-hand writer. Tbe witness withdrew imraediately after. - Tb* Lprd Chancellor took this opportunity of slating, that he had received a communication from a noble Lord (Lord Montagu), one of the witnesses for the Queen, vvho was In such a stale of health as would prevent him frorn attending the House. He wished to know whether 4he counsel on both sides nould agree that he might be examined abroad, by something in the nature of 8 coiamissipn ? Their I..prdships had caused witnesses to be e.\amined in Ire land, by directing magistrates there to lake depositions, and they had done the same in different parts of ihe country. He knew this could not be permitted nitbput the cpnseut of both parlies ; but, if they would consent, he thought their Lordships wo«ld agree to the proceeding, as far as the practice of the House was concerned. He did not wish to receive any ansvver frora the coun- Siel this eveniog on the subject; but be would mention it to-morrow morn ing, and io the mean lime tliey would have an opportunity of considering the matter. He thought it necessary, however, to stale the ciroumstawee, when he was apprized that a witness in favour of the Queen could not attend. Mr. RoBtjiT Phak*, a cashier in the banking-house ofCoults and Co., being called,, the certificaite given by the Queen to the witness Sacchi, was put into bis bands. He deposed that be had been thirleen years in the employ of Coutts and Co., and was acquainted with the hand-writing of the Princess of Wales, frora having paid drafts signed by her. Tbe certificate was of her writing. A paper was also pu-t into the hands of the witness by Mr. Broughara, which purported to be signed by the King, we believe, when Prince of Wales, but Mr. Phaer could not swear tbat it was the hand-writing of his Majesty, as, tfaongh the King kept cash at the house pf Coutts and Co-, he Apvpf drew it out h!m5?.lf. Tbe oertifica;^ given to Giuj^eppe Sacchi, a native of Co-mo, da:ted Pesaro, Sth Nov. 1817, vvas then read by the interpreter In Italian, and afterwards in English. It gaye the witness "a most excellent chu.racter for assiduity, .?eal, wd fidelity," afld stated that he wjas only dischargesd from moitives of econo-. iny, and for the sake of retainiag older servants. It was Mgned " Caroline P." The Attwney General then offered the certificate given by Schiavini to Majochi, in the band-writi.ng of Schiavini, *nd neither signcid, OPT .sealed by fkp Pfinccsg. He contended, on the evidence of Mawtaoiselle Diuimonl,, 39:8 TRIAL OF THE iQUEEN. (pp. 361 and 362 of the ofliclal copy,) that Schiavini, as Marshal of the Palace, was authorised to give these certificates. Mr. Brougham, on the contrary, insisted that though it appeared by the testimony of Maderaoiselle Dumont that Schiavini " several times" had given certificates, yet those very words implied that somebody else gave them at other times. The Lord Chancellor referred to the evidence of Francisco di Rollo, who had received a certificate from the hands and in the writing of the Princess herself. He thought that no sufficient ground had been laid for reading the certificate of Majochi. The House decided accordingly, and it was rejected. APPLICATION FOR DELAY BY THE PROSECUTORS. The Attorney-General then said he had an application to make of conside rable Importance. Certain persons, who were to have been witnesses at the bar, . resident in the neighbourhood of Lugano, had set out on their way to the House; three had actually set out, and a fourth was on the point of starting. The Lord Chancellor desired the Attorney-General to keep his voice higher. The Attorney-General proceeded j Three of the witnesses had advanced as far as Beauvais, two stages on this side of Paris, when reports reached them that certain persons on their way to London on the sarae business had been extreraely ill treated at Dover. They becarae so alarraed that they went before a magistrate at Beauvais, and made a deposition that they had returned to Lugano, frora apprehensions for their personal safety. As soon as this in formation reached England, persons were sent out, if possible, to overtake the witnesses, but Ineffectually. On Monday, in the present week, letters had been received from Lucerne, near Lugano, stating a confident expecta tion that the witnesses, having altered their determination, would set out on the 29th of August on their way to give evidence. Since Monday no further intelligence had been received, but the letter ihen obtained was from the per son who had been sent out lo bring back the witnesses. It thus appeared tbat there was every reason to believe that at this moment the persons in question were on their way lo give evidence, and their arrival might be looked for in a few days. Of the importance of their testimony it would probh.bly not be come him (the A ttorney-General) to ispeak ; but from the accounts on the subject he bad previously obtained, he had no hesitation in staling that in his opinion their testimony woiild be most raateiiial. He had felt it his duty to mention these circurastances, and to ask their Lordships whether, in an anx ious desire that this great subject shpuld be thoroughly and properly investi gated, they did not think the application for a short delay ft and, reasonable.* ' This is a strange tale ' It is an odd mode, (says the Times,) where every thing else also , is odd, of carrying on law, — of patching up evidence piecemeal. The vast resources of ihe British Crown, the disgraceful exertions of its foreign Ministers, the servility of Continental Courts, — the example of chambermaids endowed with presents equivalent to ten years'' wages, of foreign barge-skippers paid at a higher rate than British AdmirMs — all', all these facts and considerations Were insufficient to overcome the apprehension which certain nameless witnesses entertained of the violence of the British populace. They came on the strength of their first resolution to Beauvais; there their courage failed, and they hastily retired. Now, as the learned Signor Sacchi has suspended the laws of gravitation, and made unsupported bodhis sustain themselves, could not some other Italian, intent to serve the prosecation, have obliterated also the space between England and Beauvais, and at once have placed the evidence, which had traversed so large a portion of France, in the British metropolis ? Why TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 399 Mr. Brougham, in resisting the application, said, that the only analogy to guide the House was to be found in the proceedings of courts below : there, such a raotion ns thnt the remainder of a trial should be postponed when it had been half gone through, because a material wiiness was absent, had never yet beeh heard of Motions of the kind were invariably made before the trial commenced, and tben the party must swear lo the iniportante of the testi mony, to his inability to procure the attendance of the witness, and his ex pectation that in a short tirae he raight be procured, was generally added in the affidavit. As, however, by the forras of the House, affidavits could not b« admitted, be presuraed that it would be required those points should be established at the bar. He was ready lo assume, therefore, that the Attorney- General was prepared to do so, and he should oppose the present 'application on very obvious grounds. The prosecution had been comraenced, (and ha only used the word prosecution for shortness, as, for aught he knew, this was nothing more than an amicable suit, and most of all unlike a prosecution,) and the prosecutor bad had full time to prepare himself : for raonths and years he had known that it was to be brought into court : he had chosen his own time, and he had, above all, begun it vvith a debate staring him in the face, origi nated on the part of her Majesty, and in which the attention of the Attorney- General was called raost especially to this point. " Do not begin (said the counsel for the Queen) before you are quite ready, for delay in the com mencement is comparatively of no iraporlance, but delay interjected in the middle, after the accuser's case is closed, may lead to the raost mischievous consequences.'' A delay, however, between one part of the prosecution artid another had never entered into their imagination, and the argument was di rected against any interval between the case for the accusers and for the ac cused ; but, let it be observed, after this the Attorney-General did not go on at once : he took an additional three weeks to prepare his case — he would not proceed imtanter, as the Queen's message, and her counsel, most earnestly entreated, but he insisted upon waiting three or four weeks under pretence that his witnesses were not ready. The House had granted that delay; it had granted it on the distinct uni^erstanding that on the 17th of August he would be fully prepared for his undertaking. This delay having occurred, a strong disposition prevailed on tbe part of the counsel for her Majesty, that three (ft four days further time should be allowed for their personal accommodation : they were told, however, that it was impossible, that no noble Lord could propose it; and although the Queen's Solicitor-General and himself were in an infirm state of health, and Xhough medical certificates could have been produced to show that six or seven days might make all the difference between sickness and health, and between danger and security, they were told that the matter was totally out of the question. Yet now, in the face of all this, the Attorney-General carae forward and told the House that he was expecting three or four raore witnesses, and that he raust be allowed to stop, to mend and patch his case by the testiraony of some frightened Luganians. He (Mr. Brougham) asked if there was any thing like fairness— any thing like equal treatment in this— whether, referring to the analogy of other trials, a prose- the fear should have taken them at Beauvais is not intelligible. In Pans, where they must meet with a vast concourse of their countrymen, where they could see journals and heai- exaggerated reports, we may conceive that they might have been struck with sudden apprc- bention: but what they could meet with at Beauvais which could at once have overthrown the purpose of their whole journey, no rational reason can be assigned. 400 TRIAL OF THE QUEEK. cutor was to be allowed to pause in th^ middle, until hftcottld bant up Hew evidence to prop his case, that could not stand without_/re*A s»ppoH? If 4rty impediment had been put in the way of the witnesses. by her Majesty, vt-bich was not pretended, there might be some ground for this request ; biit was the House, merely because this story (to which he would nol give the vulgar ap^ pellation due) was told from Beauvais, to grant time for the collection of ne» evidence and the promulgation of fresh slanders? He did riot saiy that the Attorney-Geiiera! would abuse the interval so to be allpwed — he Was itiCapS-' ble of it: he did not, say that those who sent hira here, (whom he did! rtfft know, because every timfe they were mentioned thfey were veiled in addifi'Ol!iAl pbseurityj) would abuse it ; but he intreaied the atJentltfh of the Himse id tbe consequences that might result from a concession of this kind {crt (ht purpose of defeating th© ends of justice. In ordinary cases thfe' absence df a material witness iri the middle of a trial invariably led fo the ttcquktCS of tkt defendant, and he felt sirtisfied that even in this tfwpfecftdented prPdeediiig thdir Lordships would not consent to this most uinprecedelited dejtftand. Mr. Denmah, before he followed on the same side, wished to krio if excuses like these, whifc-h would be scouted in any of our courts, were accepted by the House to induce themtb abandofi all tbe known forms of justice? From day to day opportunities fftf pre{»ration and completion bad been afforded ttJ the other side; add hff#, in Ih© last hour of frlalj when that period had artlv^d for A*hich the Queew had been. so long and io anxiously waiting, she was told, that she was to be agftin exposed to the pelting of new dirt, by reinforcements of supplemental witnesses. Surely from every quarter she h4d enough 10 Complain of, without being subjected to this additional suffering. To consent to the application would be the most gross and Intolerable injustice, and he was confident, that the honourable minds of their Lordships would refuse at once to subject to it that illustrious female, vvh6' for Weeks bad been the victim 6f calumnies t6 tshich the Attorney-General had not even ventured to a'Hude. He inlreated the House to have some consideration for the feelings of that iiyured lady, at the moment -when Sh« expe dosed, it was corapetenl to hira to bring forward any evidence with which he raight be furnished. If this application had never been raade, the Attorney -Gieneral vvould have been entitled to call on fhe olher side lo finish their cross-exarai- nations before he concluded his tase. If the Queen's counsel replied that'they had not the means of doing so without an adjournment, then tbec.ise of the sup porters of the bill vvould be'^till open, and, without any request of thi^ kind, he might call and examine tbe Luganian witnesses. If, on the other hand,' the Queen's counsel required no time for cross-exaraination, then, of course; it vvould remain for the other side to submit to the House whal course il -W'ould be proper to adopt. It was a misapprehension in the noble and learned Lord if he supposed that the facts lo be proved by these new witnesses had not •been opened to the House by the Attorney-General. • '-' Lord Erskine felt it impossible, under any circumstances, to consent to this application, which \i us' monstrously repugnant to every principle of jwiice. (Hear.) He did not at all agree with what bad fallen from the noble Earl; and it vvas not because the Queen's counsel might not yet Ivave determined whether they would or would not further cross-examine, that th*- Attorney- General was lo be allowed to make out a new case. What was novv proposed was nothing like an allowable atterapt to support the testiraony ot witnesses who raight have broken down in cross-exaraiiidtion : and who, from the begin ning of English justice, had ever heard nf an instance, after a criminal case had begun, and, above all, a criminal case of this description, where" the accusing party, on accnmu of any accident, however unforeseen and uncon trollable, had been permitted to add lo his proofs by delay? (Hear.) He could not permit himself tor a moment lo deliberate on the question. Tn the case of the murderer of Mr. Pen eval, an application had been made before trlaffor time to bring witnesses from Liverpoot to establish llie insanity>dF'the assassin; but tbe Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas had wisely refused it : and what sufficient reason had here been offered for stopping in tbe Tery midst of the proceeding? — In a case of treason, what would a judge sA^ fo a demand that the jury should be allowed to separate, or be confined While the prosecutor was adding to the strength dfi'bis ease by searching for neir testi mony ? He hoped their Lordships would not deviate here from the rules that prevailed in cases where the lives and liberties of their fellow-subjects vvere at stake. (Hear.) If they did consent to this delay, all he could- do vvas to enter his most solemn protest against a step rTiosi fatal to British jjititke. (Cheers.) ... • The Earl of Liverpool proposed postponing the further debate utftil' to morrow, as it was now considerably past the usual hour of adjournment. (Adjourn ; go on.) ' ¦'¦' ~ - ^>* ' The Earl of Carnarvon observed, that'lhe Attorney-General ought first to 'be asked whelher be was prepared with evidence to support his application. (Hiar, hear.) ' The iord CAaWtor accordingly puff the question, and '"- '- f he'Attorney-General said, " I think I shall be able to lay before your Lordships such proof as ioill satisfy you," < TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 4s03 ^If Brottghani. — My learned frjend dpps not venture to. do more than to tai tlie House that he MMi li l^oleoos far my. journey : I counted them; there,- .,«., ¦- <,¦ ' . ' . ¦.¦,\ ¦ f, ¦ ,_ How many did you show him ?~-Iih«ilie^e 80. , ¦, , ¦ ., ,, Will you swear that you di obj^ottoa turn hsiihadjUsed^ a^idiithus prevenfthim TRIAL OF THE QCEEU. 407 from proceeding. He desired to know whether their Lordships allowed him to put the question. Lord Exmouth moved tbat the counsel do withdraw; which being ordered, his Lordship said he was nol the noble Peer who had stood up and said, tbat the witness had not used the word " funeral," though the learned counsel had directed his looks to him. He would imiintain, however, tbat he or any other Peer had a right to interpose to correct a question which might appear impro per, without any counsel checking them or staring them in the face. He came there to sit as judge, and to vote on his honour and his oath, and was not to be lectured by any counsel whatever. As he had already said, he wai not the Peer who had interrupted the qucstiou. * The Marquis of Lamdown thought that the proper course of proceeding, when any noble Peer wished to interpose, was first to move that ihe counsel ¦withdraw. This, he thought, should have been done, if it vvas wished to ascertain whelher the witness raeant that people were going to see the King, or the King's funeral. Lord Redesdale observed, that in his opinion noble Peers had been several times insulted by the remarks of counsel in the course of the present pro- .ceedings; Counsel vvere then called in ; Mr. Gurney read the question, and the ex- aminatioa proceeded. Do you raean to say that upon that day the young raan vvho accompanied you told you that the people went to see the King's funeral ? — He told me that the people went 21 miles to see the funeral ; but whether he told me vvhat was true or not, I cannot say. Did you go with that young man to any particular house ?— I remember we came into some street, where some gentleman lived whom I don't know, and to whose house I was to carry a letter. His servant told me that he Was, not at home, because he had gone out to see the ceremony of the funeral of the King. Was it a large house? — I don't know whether itwas large or small. I went to the door. 1 was informed that he was not at home, and I went away. Did you go that day with this young man, this laquais de place, to any other house? -Yes, because I had another letter, and in that instance also 1 did not find the ma^iter at home. -(Some objection was taken by Mr. Brougliam to the accuracy of this trans lation ; tbe question vvas put again, and the answer rendered) — Tbat day we could nol find tbe house. We went here and there, and could not find the address. Doyou mean to say that you called at a house with a letter to carry to s»racbody, and that you could not find tlie person at home?— Not on that day, but another day ; for on that day we went here and there; and still we could not find the address. On that, or on the other day, or either of them, did you go with that yOUtlg man, and to find any person in a very large house ?— How am I to know whe ther it was a large or sraall [house] ? I did not make the observation ; I Can- not-saywhether itwas large or small. Did you, on either of those occasions, go ihto a house where there was 4, sentinel standing at the gate ? i, . ¦ j^w,*. , , ,„;giie:iptefprpter i^bspri^^, -tbat^e vslfngSS ^wanted to know whelher be was ¦ to answer to the one day or the other; because that had not been explained to him.] Mr. Brougham.'^l will thank you, Mr. Marchese, to ask him this questjon— 408 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Did you, ;Upon any of those occasions, when you were so accompanied by the laquais de place, go into any large house where there was a sentinel standing at the door? — That was on the first day of my arbival in England,* when I was told that tliat was the liouse where was the court bf the King: for I had three or four letters. Did you ever go to that house again ? — Yes ; I went and returned through a door to and from the bouse. Do you mean several limes to and from this house } — I do. -Do you go inlo the house and leave your laquais de place at the gate or door the while ? — The first tirae I left him out at the door. Did you nol leave him at tiiat door, at the other times also, when he accom panied you to this house? — 'What I reraeraber is, that while I vvas in the house with some one, I have left the laquais de place at the door. Do you mean to say, that, at the other tiraes you were there, your laquais de place was not at the door ? — Whether he came in, or not, I cannot tell ; I left bim there, and I don't think he slopped; where he went afterwards, I can not tell. Did you find lii-m waiting there for you when you came out of the house upon this occasion ? — I have not mentioned the place; what I remember is, that I found him wailing for rae, when I carae out. Upon any one of those occasions, did you corae out with a gentleman whom you had found in the greaf house? — Yes; I did. Did you go from thence, wilh that gentleman, to his chambers ? — No. Did you not go with him some where ? — With that gentleman I went no where. Who was this gentleman whom you came oul with ? — What I remember is, that he was a Mr. Powell. Will you swear that you did not go with Mr. Powell, when you came out, to his chambers in Lincoln's-Inn?— With Mr. Powell I did not go. Did not you, then, at ihat time raak.6 an appointraent to go at six o'clock to Mr. Powell's charabers? — I aid. Did you not go that evening, according to that appointment ? — I did. Now, as to the great house, I understand you to say, that you went several times afterwards,^-frequently, in short, to it, with your laquais de place ? — Yes. Did JOU not, on one of those occasions, go from Mr. Powell's to that great house, wilh a note ? — I did. Did you go in, on that occasion, to the house, anc[\eave_yo\\r laquais de place outside at the door? — I believe, I have left hira out of doors; but 1 can not be sure of it. Now, this great bouse, — was it Carlton House? — The name of Carlton I have not heard ; it was said to be the Palace ok the King.' Were there any pillars before the door ? — I know that the people enter by a small door; and, as soon as they get in, there is another door before thera. Did you see any plll!!.rs about the house ? — I have seen sorae ancient Grecian colurans ; they were inside. After you enter through the outer gale, is there a court between the house and the street? — There is a court between the house and the street. , Have you had any conversation with Mr. Powell about your expenses, and the payment of them, in the presence of your laquais de place ? — Questonon mi ricordo, * What a disclosure ! It now appears that this cieature arrived in England to open the second conspiracy against the Queen on the very day the late King was conveyed to hi s long home. What cruel prompitude in her Majesty's enemies ! No sooner is her ptbtcctor laid in the dust, than they proceed on their. unguarded victim like wild beasts. ini«,i. ur xnr. QUEEN. 409 Did Mr. Powell say to you, in the presence of this laquais de place, that money was no otyect, and that you might have more if you wanted il ? — No. Will you swear that? — that be did not say, " money was no object?" — I Ayilfswear that Mr. Powell never said so. Will you also swear thai he never, in the presence of that laquais de place, said any thing to that purpose pr cITect ? — No : INIr. Powell never talked ¦about this purpose, nor held such discourse. Perhaps Mr. Powell never talked to you al all about this business of the Queen's ? The Attorney-General objected to this question. Mr. Brougham appealed to their Lordships. — Was it meant to be said, ihat he could not, upon cross-e.xamination, ask this question? Was it ineant to be contended, that itwas an irregular question ? Non constat that Mr. Powell had said this or any thing else. Her Majesty's counsel knew not Mr. Powell; they, had not upon the record any description of Mr. Powell; but any thing he raight have said was as much and as fair matter of evidence in this case as any thing else. < The Lord Chancell-ir thought, that the counsel for the crown had better allow the question; and if, in answer, any thing was stated whicb they thought erroneous, they might afterwards call up Mr. Powell in order to contradict it. Mr. Brougham resumed. — Do you mean to represent that you never had any conversation wilh Mr. Powell upon the subject of the Queen ? — (The vvitness.) How, vvhat do you raean? I don't understand what you say? The Interpreter. — My Lords, if I ara to use the word "conversation," I shall never raake myself undeistood. Mr. Brougham. — Then pray use another word, Sir; "discourse," if you please. Put the question again in this way :— Do you mean to say that Mr. Powell has never spoken to you on the subject of the Queen? — Mr. Powell spoke to rae upon this business at Milan, when I made my deposition : but after that, wc have never spoken together any more upon the subject. Did you ever see this letter before ? (Mr. Brougham produced a letter, and exhibited it to the vvitness.) — I never saw it; but I don't know how to write or read. Do you know a person of the name of Long ?— 1 don't know hira ; I am not acquainted wilh any person of that name. Were you ever at the (ilobe tavern ?-'Where ? At the place where you used to meet Cavazzi, and the olher persons, of an evening 1 Oh, yes ; but I don't know the name of the tavern, for 1 did not look at iti Do you know the master of ihat tavern ?— If I were to see him I should know hira. Now, while he is coraing, we will just ask you another question : after your first exaraination here, have you ever seen Mr. Powell or his clerk ? — Yes, 1 have seen him frequently. I have seen him sometimes; for he coraes to the place where we are, and I have seen hira. How long were you ever with them or him at any one of these times ?— Oh, I have seen hira coming, and I merely paid him. ray respects. I saw him, too, the olher day, when he asked me for my certificaie. Now, turn round, and look at this person. Is- this the master of the house I spoke of, do you know?— Yes, Ido. Mr. Broughami^John James Long being pointed out to him— my Lords, he says, this is the master of the house. 59 410 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Now, Sir, did you employ this person, yourself not being abJe to write, to write a letter to Mrs. Blackwell ? The Lord Chancellor observed that it was necessary for Mr. Brougham to specify what was his^definite object in, bringing forward Mr. Long. Mr. Brougham. — It was only, my Lord, to prove that he wrote this letter which I hold in my hand. The Lord Chancellor, — I. understood- that he had just corae in, and that you brought hira in in order to Identify hira; but unless this be stated, one does not know what objections may arise. The last question was then repeated. — Ans. Yes, he has written twice for me; once lo Mr. Hyalt, and the other to Mrs. Blackwell. Should you know cither of those loiters again if I were to show It to you ? — I have not seen thera, because I told hira to do me the favour to write the letters for me ; and then he told rae, " There are the letters which I have written ; " but I never looked at tbem, and I cannot recognize thera. Mr. Brougham, — What I now mean to ask tbe witness, wilh the perm'isslon of ybur Lordships, he not having written that letter himself, but having em ployed another person, is, vvhether he did not give sUch and such instructions to Mr. Long to write that letter, whether he did not state certain things which he begged Mr. Long to write. Your Lordships will observe that I do not ask ' him what Mr. Long did write, but only what the witness stated to Mr. Long to induce him to write. The Lord Chancellor. — It strikes me that you cannot give any evidence as to the contents cf a letter, but that you may ask A. B. whether he employed another to write it. Mr. Brougham. — 'Very well, my Lord ; that is exactly what I wish. Did you not desire Mr. Long to write a letter to JMrs. Blackwell to the following effect ? — Idid tell him to wrile. , Did you lell him to Write in this manner: — " I have safely delivered the letter to your brother, find be is quite well, and desires to be remembered to you kindly ? " — I lold hira to write to the following effect : — " I have not found your brother at home, but I have left your letter into (in) the bands of Ills wife ; they are well, and I beg; you lo make my compliments to the fiimi-- ly and^tovvards every body in it." Did you not add this information to be written by Mr. Long : — " I have got a situalion, and am going olt this evening for Vienna ? " — I was settino- out for 'Vienna. Did you not, in that letter, desire him lo give your kind remembrances to Mrs. Hughes, Madame Cangialelli, and brother — meaning Mrs. Huohes's son, whom you were accustuincd to call " brother?"—! desired to be remembered. Do you mean to say that you dctired lo be remembered to the son of Mrs. Hughes, as an act of friendship? — 1 did. Did you not desire Mr. Long'to write also ? — " After I left you, I could ii.eilher eat, nor drink, nor sleep ; so God bless you all?" — Yes, I said— because when we were together wc played and joked among ourselves — 1 said, as matter of compliment, that I could not ear, nor drink, nor sleep. (A laugh.) Did you ever propose also to marry this Mrs. Blackwell, as matter of cora- pliment ? (Laughter, and cries of Order, order,) Did ypu ever propose to marry Mrs. Blackwell?— Oh, yes; I wantid to TKIAL OF Tllli QUEEN. 4(1 many Mrs. Blackwell, Madame Cangia.elli, Mrs. Hughes, and every body that was in the house. (Much laughter,) Y ""y I think you went to Paris in 1818 or I8I9 '—Never Were you there in 1819?-! was never in Paris at all [This was answered by the witness before the Interpreter had repeated one vvord ot the question.] ' '^ Re-txamined by the Attorn ev-General. You have been asked respecting sorae Napoleons ynu received before you went to Vienna. . for what purpose did you go to Vienna ?-As a courier. Did you receive .iny directions to travel to Vienna with all expedition ?— ics; 1 was ordered 10 go as quick as possible. before you went to Vi- For what purpose were those Nupoleons given you nna?— To pay the expenses of my journey. Wereyou to account for those Napoleons I—Si, Sig , — - . — , ....gnor. Did you account for those Napoleons?— Yes ; 1 gave an account of the ex penses of ray journey. The witness has been asked whether he took a note from Mr. Powell to the great house he has been speaking of; I ask him for what purpose it was that . he took that note? — As far as I can remember, to obtain a passport. On that occasion, inlo what part of the house did vvitness go ? through what door or other gate ?— I turned to the left when I got into the court : I mounted a few steps, then rung a bell ; a servant came, and I gave him my note. How long did you wait upon that occasion ? -^About half an hour, and no more. Where eke did you go frora thence ? were you directed to go any where else for your pas.sport ? — I did ; I was. Where ? — (The witness, after considering for some seconds) — To the Aus trian Ambassador's. Did you upon that occasion get your passport ? — When I showed ray note, they gave me my passport. Whom did you see at the great house on the occasion you have before spoken of?'— I saw a footman, and a German, who talked to me in Gerraan. Whom did you see at any other time (as you say you were there several times) at the great house ? — I saw a /aroc big man, rather a handsome man, who did not understand French or Italian, but who spoke vvith me by signs. For what purpose did you go to that house? — The first time I went to carry a packet; and then I said that I must have a receipt for the packet, for I could not give it without taking a receipt. Did you bring that packet with you vvhen you came over to England with Mr. Hyatt? — I did. I ask the witness tp say, as well as he recollects, how raany tiraes he has called at that house ? — What i can reraember is, that I have been there three limes. As he had told us for what he went there the first tirae, ask him whether he recollects for what purpose he went the second tirae ? — The second tirae I went to see vvhether there was any answer lo the packet for wliich I had asked a receipt, and a third tirae because ihey told me to call again for an answer. . Was it the third or another time, that you went there on thesubject of your passport ? — Then I went another time for ray passport. The Earl of Rosebery. Did you go alone to Vienna,' or in company with any other person?' — Alone, alone : (solo, solo, solo.) 412 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. ^ By Earl Grey,— Are vve lo understand that you can neither read nor write ? — I can only wrile my name, and hardly that. Earl Grey begged the house to refer to page 141 of the minutes, and then desired the interpreter to read from that page the following questions and answers: — " How long were you in England at that period when you lived with Mr. Hyatt at Gloucester? — This I cannot remember, because I have not the book in which I have marked the time. "About how long were you in Mr. Hyatt's service? — ;Thi& is the sarae answer, because I have nol the book iu which I put down how long I was there." Earl Grey then desired the witness to be asked if he adhered to these answers.' The Interpreter appeared here to have considerable difficulty in making the witness comprehend the answers he had previously given. The interpreter at length said, that what he could collect from tho witness was, that in his forraer answers he meant to have said, " Not to put down, or put it down at all." He begged, ho\vever, their Lordships' permission to impress raore slrongly on the witness's raind fhe purport of his previous- answers, and afterwards to ask him more fully to explain what he meant. The interpreter then proceeded with the task of trying lo make the witness coraprehend his object, and then said to their Lordships : — " It seeras to rae, and also to her Majesty's interpre ter, that he means lo say he had not a book tp mark upon, or, not a book to write- upon some marks of his own. He last says, "not a book in which I made my marks." • , ^ Earl Grey. — Does he mean to say that he has not the book In vvhich he put those, marks, or made such an entry? The interpreter again undei took the harassing duty of trying to make'the witness understand so simple a question as that put by the noble Earl, and, after sorae explanation with hira, announced — " Oh, he means, ray Lords, he had no book of any sort whatever." After a few words from ibe Marquis of Sligo, respecting the Italian words used by thewitness, Mr. Brougham said, the previous answer given by the witness ought to be altered upon the minules, for the sake of rectifying the mistake, if it were a mistake,'into which he hjid fallen. Earl Grey concurred in this suggestion,, and the answer vvas ordered to be amended on the minutes accordingly. The Earl of Carnarvon also suggested, that the wiiness should be called upon to explain his meaning of the words "Non mi ricordo," which so repeatedly occurred in bis former examination. The Interpreter was here proceeding to observe, that the Italian words "Non mi ricordo" had several meanings : amongst them were— Here he vvas called to ordei" by their Lordships. Tho Earl of Carnarvon said, that the words often raeant " as far as I can re collect." They did not convey a positive, but rather an uncertain meaning, vvhich admitted explanation. The Attorney-General was about to make a remark, when The Earl of Lauderdale rose, and desired the interpreter lo ask the witness in - what sense he had used the words alluded, to. It was right that the House should hear the witness's, explanation of his raeaning. (Hear.) TUIAL OF THE QUEEN. 413 Lord Holla7id\vas at a loss to sec how his nol.le friend's question would as- CcriHin that. It the words, as had hveii said, have various meanings, how were they to acquire a knowledge of the witness's several mianings by putting a single question ? That kiunvledgo could only he acquired by going step'ly step with the witness through the whole of bis exaraination, and asking him his meaning upon each of the occasions in which he had used tho words " Non mi ricordo." (Hear.) To ask him simply the general question, and then decide Vpon his single ansvver the meaning he attached to the words, would, instead of relieving their Lordships from any difficulty, rather add to the existing conn fusion. It could, in fact, tend to no practical result. Tbe Earl of Lauderdale thought it highly necessary that tho witness should be called upon to give the explanation ofhis meaning in some way or another. The witness vvas then directed to withdraw.* The Attorney-General,— Am I to understand that the Queen's Attorney- General does not contemplate any further cross-examination at any time ? Mr. Brougham. — At no lime. SUMMING UP. -The Solicifor-Gencral then rose at half-past 12 o'clock to sum up the evi- (knce to the hou'Se. He commenced by staling, that his learned friend (Mr. Brougham) having closed the long and elaborate cross-examination of Theodore Majochi, and as the vvhole of the evidence in suppoit of the bill vvas now before their Lordships, the duty devolved upon him of summing up to their Lordships the leading points of that evidence, in support of the alle gations contained in the preamble of the bill of Pains and Penalties against her .Majesty the Queen. The difficulty which he had lo encounter, in per forming this duty, was, as their Lordships must be aware, greatly augmented by the circumstance, that as the learned counsel for the Queen had yet to raake their answer to the case,, he was left without any knowledge of any of the arguments with which they meant to combat the provisions of the bill, or of any of the facts upon which the defence of her Majesty the Queen mainly rested. All that he could, therefore, do, in the performance of his present dntj-, was to enforce upon their Lordships' attention the manner in which ¦the case at present stood, and huw the evidence adduced made out and supported the allegations in tbe preamble of the bill. He trusted that, upon reference to that evidence, which he would not now give their Lordships the * We raay now bid a final adieu to Signor ^on mi Ricordo and his associates. They have exhibited a strange medley of cunning, ingratitude, falsehood, meanness, and ignorance. .It is not, Irowever, against this wretched horde that the public will feel indignant, but against flie men who could agitate the coantr3' — suspend public business — pollute society with the most disgusting obscenity that ever emanated in the vilest brothel — and, finally, who could found the accusation of the Queen of England on the leslimony of such a base and despicable rabble. It is against these that contempt and e.'tecration will be directed ; for it cannot excite surprise, still less indignation, when we remember that the virtue of many noble lords and illustrious commoners has melted away under the smiles of tbe Treasury, that poor Won mi Ricordo, Signor Sacchi, and u cast-off chambermaid should fall victims to its overpowering influence. Among all the witnesses produced, excepting Captains Pechell and Briggs, there is not one that is not of tbe lowest, meanest, most purchaseablc occupation in human life — not one whose character has borne the test of a slight cross-exarainaljon frora such materials at casually sprung up — the names and designation of thevvitnesses being, as ihey well might, studiously concealed till the moment of production. To degrade or divorce the Queen on such evidence would be monstrous : we can hardly believe the attempt will be persisted in; and it now seems most natural that Ministers will now only be anjious to withdraw their detested Bill from public observation— to repair the manifold injuries of her JMajesty — the wounds inflicted on public morals-T-and the character of the country among other nations. 41,4 TEIAL OF THE QUEEN. trouble' of reading, they vvould 'find the preamble mainly sustained. Before he impressed the leading facts upon their Lordships' memory, he begged to slate tbat he should carefully abstain from either mis-statement or exaggera tion. His duty was not to impose or to influence by any distorted stateraent; all that was required of him vvas, that he should sum up the evidence with truth and accuracy, and. then point out how it applied to the charges upoij which the bill was founded. If it were not expected of him to incur any charge of this mis-statement, still less, he hoped, was it expected pf hira tb use the slightest expression derogatory from the station and dignity of her Majesty the Queen. No such expressions should escape his lips. The Queen was here ou trial before their Lordships: one side — and that the case against her — had only been heard. He, therefore, vvas bound in strict^ liiw, and so were their Lordships, to consider her Majesty innocent of those foul charges ascribed to her until they heard her defence. None could pror nouiice her guilty until their Lordships' verdict decided and justified that imputation. He and his learned friends had been charged with scattering calumnies abroad, and throwing dirt against the character of the Queen. But, though this charge had been insidiously .disseminated, he, and those with him, felt guiltless of the iraputation. They had, throughout, stated nothing which ibey had reason to believe would not be satisfactorily proved. If calumnies had been uttered, they belonged to another quarter; that quarter alone ought to be called upon to account for them. It appeared, from the evidence before their Lordships, that her Majesty took Bergami into her service as a courier, at Milan, in thei3ear 1814; he had previously lived in a menial situation with General Pino, his wages then being three livres a day. It was also stated by the witness, that for the first fortnight after the Queen look Bergami into her service, he wailed behind her Majesty's table. At that tirae a youth, of whom their Lordships had heard; nained TVilliam Austin, was in the constant habit of sleeping in her Majesty's apart ment, but the Queen gave directions, vvhen she set put from Milan, that another bedroora should in future be provided for hira, as he was advancing to a period In life when it vyould be unfit for him to sleep any, longer in the chamber she occupied. A separate apartment was accordingly provided for Austin on the arrival of the Queen at Naples. When her Majesty arrived there, she slept at a country-house. On the night after her arrival at Naples, the Queen went to the opera. It vvas here most material for their Lprdships - to attend throughout to all the relative siluatious of the Queen's bedroora and Bergami's, who was then her courier. Al Naples the communication between them W'as of this kind : — There was a private passage, which terminated at one side in a cabinet, that led to Bergarai's sleeping-roora, while on the other side of ihe same passage was the bed-room of the Queei^ ; sq that the occu pant of eilher one or the other roora could traverse this passage without inteir ruption, for the passage had no coraraunicalion with any other apartment^ than the. two he had mentioned. Thewitness, their Lordships would recol lect, had stated, on the evening upon which her Majesty went to the opera at Naples, she returned home at a very early hour, and vyent from her apart ment into the cabinet contiguous to Bergami's. That she soon returned to her own room, where her female attendant was in waiting, and gave strict orders thatyoung Austin should not be adraitted Into her room that,nlght. The man ner and conduct pf the Queen upon that occasion attracted the notice of the ser vant, vvho, excited by what she had noticed on the preceding night examined the slate of the beds on the following morning. And what was the result of that exa mination ? She had slated that the small travelling-bed had not been slept upon TRIAL OF tiit QUEEN, 41^$ at all on that night, but that the larger bed had the impression of being slept m by two persons : and she further said, In answer to a question from one Of their Lordships, which could not be evaded, that she had also observed in the bed two marks of a description which but too clearly indicated what had passed there in the course of die night, lie had indeed hear-d that none of the witrienscs had deposed before their Lordships lo the actual fact of adultery ; but to such an assertion he would reply, that, if those facts mere true, no person of rational niind could doubt that on that night the adulterous intercourse was coramenced which formed the subject of the present unhappy iuvestigalion. Upon the sort of proof required in cases of adultery he should merely observe, tl-.at he did nut recollect a single instance, in cases of adultery, where the actual fact was fully proved in evidence. The crime was always to be inferred from accompanying circumstances, which left no doubt of the fact upori the mind of a rational and intelligent man. On this point of proof he would beg leave to quote the opinion of one of the most enlightened judges that eVer sat in this country. He had received this opinion from one of his learned friends who bad taken notes of it at the time il vvas pronounced by the learn ed judge. Il was in the case of Lnveden v. Lovedcn, before Sir William Scottj, in the Consistory Court, in the year 1809. The learned judge then stated, that there vvas no necesslly in a case of that nature lo prove the actual fact of the adultery, for that could not be proved in 99 cases out of 100, where there was still no doubt of its having taken place. The uniform rule was, that where facts vi ere proved which directly led to the conclusion that the act of adultery had been coramilted, such proof must be taken as sufficient,* Now let the House for a moment look al the case in this light: — Suppose an adul terous iniercourse really to have existed, how would that intercourse have manifested it.self ? How, but from tbe habitual conduct of the parties? To screen such an intimacy from the eyes of attendants was impossible : and let theie Lordships direct their attention lo tbe scenes which had been constantly occurring, to the scenes which, in continued detail, had been described by the witnesses. Their Lord.ships would remember the ball which took place at the house upon the sea-shore while the Princess was at Naples. To that ball her Royal Highness went, accompanied only (for the purpose of dress ing and preparation) by the waiting-maid Dumont, and by Bergami; two apartments, a dres.>iing-room and an ante-room, being allotted for her use. For her first character, that of a Neapolitan peasant, the Princess was dressed by the waitlng-raaid ; she went into the ball-roora, stayed a short time, re turned for the purpose of changing her dres.s, and did change it entirely; the chainbermald all the while being left in the ante-room, and the courier being in the dressing-room during the operation. Now the House could not but bave noticed the style of Mr. 'Williams's cross-examination as to that transac tion. The witness had merely been asked whether thtre vvere not persons of rank and consideration in the ball-room below. Kut it had been said that, even admitting all these facts, they did not amount to evidence of adultery. Could any man look al a princess, locked up in her bed-room fox nearly an bour, and changing her dress wilh the assistance of'her courier, and enter tain any doubt upon the subject? The thing did not stop there; there was -— — * Sir WilliamViulc may do very well, where the facts wliich lead lo the adulterous con clusion rest on unimpeachable ICitimony. But tbe learned judge never meant that the honour of a lady should be impugned on tbe hired evidence of Ciisl-olfservanls, actuated by malice, euvy, and revenge, and to procure whose testimony every means of seductive iiiBiiencc bad beeu employed. 4,16 tRiAL OF T'llE QUEEN. • another dhange of dre.™ ; her Royal Highness assumed the ch^ratter of H Turkish lady; and In that character,, for the second tirae, went down sfairS arm in arra with this courier, this coraraon footman, this raan accustomed to wait behind her chair; and what happened then ? Why, almost instantly, the courier returned. (The Solicitor-General then repeated the other heads of Majochi's leslimony.) All this, however, rested upon the testimony Of Majochi, who was, of course, a wiiness unworthy 'df belief. That witness had been cross-examined once, tvvice, and because Carltqn-house had some how been introduced, he had just now been cross-examined, for the third lime; he (the Solicitor- General) had altended* most diligently to the first cross-exa mination ; he had since read the evidence as it appeared upon the minutes ; and he did declare that, as it appeared to him, during a cross-examination of seven hours, extending over a period of three years, and going through a variety of complicated facts, in i^o one instance had that Vvitness be^n be trayed into .inconsi.stency. Certainly the wiiness had repeatedly used the phrase (perhaps of equivocal import) "X do not remember;" and the changes which had been rung upon that circumstance raight produce an Irapression upon low minds, although it could produce none upon the minds of their Lordships. But it was impossible not to perceive the artifice — the " let us have a few more non mi ricordos ;" and it was equally impossible not to perceive that to the questions proposed the- witness could return no other answer. The next witness called had been Gaetano Paturzo, whose evidence had been calculated to produce a deep and lasting irapression Upon the House'; that impression had instantly been felt by the learned counsel on the othei: side ; it became necessary to remove it ; and, by a proceeding lo the pro priety of which he (the Solicitor-General) never could assent, Majochi (aftei: the examination of Paturzo) had been again placed at the bar. With what -view, and for what purpose, had he been interrogated ? First he had been questioned as to certain statements which he was said la have made, in order that, if he denied them, witnesses might, at a future time, be called to con tradict him. What was the huriy ? 'What was the necessity for calling back Ihe witness at that particular lime ? The necessity .was clear ; all that was wanted was a few more Tion mi ricordos. Tt had next been made matter- of accusatign agairi.st the witness, that he had not, on his former exaralnatiorf, staled that he had before been in England ; the fact being that he had come lo England as courier lo a Mr. Hyalt, remained a few weeks In Glocester, ami afterwards again left the country with despatches. The facts to which Majochi had sworn were not directly confirmed by the witness Dumont ; btit that witness had spoken to facts of similar description, and occurring at the same period. Not to dwell upon the constant familiarity between the Princess and this courier, ut)ou their being.constantly Seen walking arm in arm," although these were facts from which a"^ reasonable roan could draw but one conclusion, he would beg to remind the House (befpre lie quilted Naples) of the proceed ings whicli had, taken place at the theatre of St. Carlos. What were briefly fhe circumstances? The princess was deslroys of going in private to Ihe theatre of St. Carlos. She made her arrangements accordingly. -The wife of the heir-apparent of the throne of Great Britain, al that time holding the 'upreme government of the country, having about her a suite of ladies and gentleman, wa.s desirous of going in private. Surely she might have selected some respectable person of her suite, some respectable inhabitant of Naples, some proper and decent companion, without materially infringing upon the privacy of the transaction : but she- chose her chainberraaid and her courier. It was a rainy night; dark, gloomy, and tempestuous :'a hiied carrilige was TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 417 drawn up at a private door at the bottom of the garden ; they traversed the terrace, the garden ; got into the hired carriage at the jirivate door, proceeded to the theatre, and there met with such a reception as obliged them to retreat and return home. Now great part of the evidence had been called, by the other side, invention ; could this be invention ? And, if it were not inven tion, to what conclusion did it lead the mind of everv man acquainted with transactions of such a description ? He would next (the learned gentle man contmued) advert to the conduct of her Royal Highness at Genoa, where the whole of her English suite, except her medical attendant. Dr. Holland, quitted her. The arrangement of the apartments at Genoa was material. The bed-roora of the Princess there was separated from that of Bergami by an interior chamber which was not occupied by any pne, and there were doors communicating from the one to the other. On the opposite side of Beraaml's bed-room there was a door communicating with the charaber of the witness Dumont; and that witness had told their Lord.ships, that regularly every night, after, being dismissed by the Princess, she went to her chamber, the key of that door was turned, leaving her locked out of Bergami's apartment. The witness had further said, that, after such locking out, she generally heard sorae door on the opposite side open ; but, whether that was the door leading frora the apartment of the Princess to the dressing-room (the intermediate roora), or from tbat interme diate room to Bergarai's apartment, she could not state. On the following mornings, however, she said, her duty being to make the bed of the Princess, she used to find that bed deranged and tumbled, but not as if it had been slept in ; and, in consequence, used .seldom actually to make it, raerely smoothing the sheets and arranging the cushions. Surely such evidence alone must satisfy any reasonable raan that, during the whole time that her Royal Highness resided at Genoa, the adulterous intercourse charged against hei^ was taking place. Il had farther been slated to the House, that there was in the residence of the Princess a sraall cabinet, adjoining the saloon, in which cabi net her Royal Highness and the courier were in the habit of breakfasting. At present that stood upon the evidence of Majochi and Dumont; but It in volved a circumstance of considerable importance to the credit of those wit nesses. How had they laid the scene ? Had tbey laid it where contradiction was impossible, or had they freely exposed themselves to contradiction if their statement was untrue? Let the House decide who were the persons in wait ing at these breakfasts. Majochi, the witness, was one: and who-was the other? The other was Louis Bergami, the brother of the courier. This statement of tbe witness challenged inquiry ; their Lordships had been told that their evidence vn'as false. Let Louis Bergami now come forward and op pose that evidence, . The learned Solicitpr-General challenged the counsel on the other side : Louis Bergami might be called : — let him be called. But; there were circumstances which might, even more strongly than additional evidence, confirm the testimony of witnesses, and such circumstances he found on every side. Let the House observe how carefully Bergarai surrounded the Princess with his relations and friends, thereby confirming the dominion he had obtained over her to a degree whicb might deprive her even of the power to shake it off. During four months at Naples the intercourse was carried on; and at Genoa the sister, the mother, and the child of Bergami were ititro- duced. The child toOj a child of two or three years old ! and the House was told that all this was fair connexion between servant and mistress; that the Princess was attached to him for bis talent and fidelity. Fidelity I He brought to the Princess a^ child, still of an age to n^d ^h^ care and pro- - '60 4/T& TlilAL OF THE QUEE^N. tection of a mother ; if the connexion was a fair one, why vvas not the mother lirought too? But if the story told by the witnesses was trUe, the last person to be introduced info the establisbraent of tbe Princess would be the mother of Victorine ; and it would fee an additional corroboration of their statement that, as soon as it was known that her Royal HighneSs was coming to the Barona, that individual escaped from it as fast as possible. To another point. It appeared that the Princess, while at Genoa, had' gone to-look at a house in a secluded spot, and at sorae distance from the city. What was the recom mendation of that house? That it was lar from Genoa; far from the English. Let their Lordships look to the evidence of -Sacchi, and they would find — vyhat? ^hyi that during the whole of the journey through Gerraany and through the Tyrol the greatest anxiety had been shown by her Royal Higbness tb avoid the En'glish upon every occasion : the first question to be put on arriving at any place was whether English of rank were at hand ? If that question was answered In the affirmative, the parly proceeded to other quarters. From Genoa, being joined by Lady Charlotte Campbell, the Princess pro ceeded to Milan ; Lady Charlotte Campbell, however, did not travel with her Royal Highness, and shortly after quilled her altogether ; from which time no English lady of rank or station remained in her suite. A' lady of honour was then, it appeared^ to be procured at Milan. And who had been chosen to fill that situalion ? The sister of Bergami. No fbreigner of rank ; no English Ihdy of respectability ; but the sister of Bergarai, the Countess Oldi. "Was that lady in any way'fitted for the office? — "The Princess spoke little Italian'; the Countess spoke only the Italian of the lower orders, and no French. They ¦vVere so situated, that little coramunication, and no conversation, could take flace between them. Il was upon these facts, which had been called trifling y the other side, but which he did not look upon as trifling ; it was upon these nicidental facts, facts which could not be invented or exaggerated' by wit nesses, that the learned gentleman relied for confirmation of his case ; and those persons must wilfully shut their eyes against conviction vvhose inferences* and conclusions were other^than his own. There was another incidentarand important fact to which he would request the attention of the House. At Milan the Princess was in the habit of wearing a bliie dress. One morning Bergami opened his bed-room window and looked out ? How was he attired f Tn the blue dress of the Princess. Could there be a doubt that he had that . ¦<^ery moment corae from the apartraent of the Princess; not suppo.simr that, at so early an hour, he should be liable to observation.? It would bein the jlemory of their Lordships that the Princess had, during her residence at Milan, taken a trip to Venice. Upon that occasion she had been accorapanled by Mr. William Burrell and Dr. Holland, and here a-circumstance had occurred whicb, if not disproved, would alone be sufficient to place the question beyond doubt. At first the party lodged at the Hotel de Grande Bretagne. After wards, leaving Mr. Burrell and Dr. Holland at that inn, thePrincess went to a bouse In the neighbourhood. According to the usual practice; after dinner the jeweller was introduced with his trinkets, and a gold chain was purchased. The party (the learned counsel stated the facts as it had been proved by the witnesses) quitted the room ; the Princess, and the courier who had been waiting behind her chair, lingered behind; and what took place? The Princess took the gold chain firom her neck, and passed it round the neck of Bergami; they laughed together; he took the chain, again from his neck, and put it upon that of her Royal Highness, presseiher hand, and led her into the ac^oining room. Was this, he would ask, true or fake ? It described the Princess toying wiSi a man who waited behind her chair, ff (ihe assertion warf&lse-, it TRIAL OP THE QUEEN. 4]g vvas open to contradiction ; if the character of the wiiness were bad, it was open to impeachment ; bul if the fuel were not by sorae means disproved, it did' appear to him impossible to reconcile such a circumstance with the suppo- sition of innocence. In the course of a visit lo Bellenzino, Bergarai, beinr shlleven in Ihodressof a courier, sat at the table of the Princes.s, and by- her own invitation. Upon a subsequent occasion, the witness De Mont had seen Bergarai pass Ihrough her chamber at night, and enter the roora of the Princess. Upon those facts he vvould make no observation. At Villa Villani tlie same communication as usual existed between tbe apartments, and a wit ness had staled, that the bed of Bergarai appeared not to have been slept in. He now came to Villa d'Este. The evidence which he was recapitulating had' already occupied nearly three weeks of the time of their Lordships: and he trusted, that they would not think a few hours longer ill bestowed, if he should be compelled to detain them in the performance of the task which had devolved upon him. The arrangement of the bed-chambers at Villa d'Este was important. At a subsequent period, after the return from the Grecian voyage, a door had been absolutely opened to facilitate the coraraunicalion. In cases like the present,, every thing was lo be Inferred frora the general conduct of the parties ; and it had been clearly shown, that the Princess and Bergamt were constantly conducting themselves like lovers, or like man and wife during the day, while every preparation was made to prevent the interrup tion of their intercourse during the night. The familiarities at the Villa d'Este were not spoken to by one, two, or three witnesses, but by such a body of testimony as set doubt at defiance. Walking arm in arm in the gardens; afone in a conoe upon the Lake ; embracing and kissing each other ; where such intimacies were proved, even between persons in an equal rank of life, accompanied by a constant anxiety for access to the bed-chamber of each other, no court could refuse to draw the inference that adultery had been committed. To go through the whole series of evidence would only be lo fatigue the House; but what wouldbe said to the testimony of Ragazzoni with respect lo the statues — to the figures of Adam mid Eve ? He remembered, that in the very case upon whicb he had already slated to the House the judg ment of Sir William Scott, in that very case ^a letter had been produced written by the lady to her lover, in which she related sorae circumstances of an indecent nature. To that letter as evidence the learned Judge had most particularly adverted ; saying that no woman would have so written td a man, unless adulterous intercourse had taken place between them. That observa tion applied most fully lo the case in poipt. The learned gentleman then recapitulated at considerable length the evidence of the witnesses Galdini, Bianchi, and Luccini, which he considered as ulLerly irresistible, and upon which he declined to make any observations. He now came to what occurred in Sicily. When her Royal Highness, and Bergami arrived at Messina, the intercourse between them had continued so long, that her Royal Highness ap peared in the bed-roora of Bergami in her night-dress, wilh the single addition of a mantle. At Messina,^ Bergami asked leave of absence, to make some purchases. The vvitness, Majochi, described the manner in which they sepa rated. Her Royal Highness called him, " mon caur," " mo>t ami," and he eihbracedherin the warmest manner. The parties were found In that situa tion at Messina, kissing, fondling, and embracing each other. They now proceed^ed to embark on board the Clorinde, Captain PecbelL 'Here some hesitation arose about the table at which the Princess was to be entertained. Captain Pechell said, '' I'am desirous, in every possible way, to afford accom modation to your Royal Highness, but there is one point on which I must 4£0 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. insist; there is one sacrifice to be made by your Royal Highness, without ¦which I cannot provide for you at my table. I, as a British officet, cannot sit down at the sarae table with a man who has stood behind a chair. I shpuld be degraded and dishonoured if I conceded this point." A message was sent to her Royal Highness on the subject, but she'treated the matter very lightjy. §he observed that she had no'deslre to incommode Captain Pechell, and felt no wish to give hira the trouble of forming a second table. This was the motive she assigned for dining with Bergami. But was this really her motive ? "Was this statement true ? Her Royal Highness had, for a considerable time before, been in the habit of dining with this man. Tt was not, therefore, for the purpose of saving Captain Pechell the inconvenience of having two tables that she proposed dining on board with Bergami ; but because it had long been her habit, and ^she was determined to bovv to it. Captain Pechell did not, however, wish to be so accommodated, and he replied, " I am ready to provide for Bergami elsewhere." The moment her Royal Highness said she wished to accommodate Captain Pechell, this was his observation ; ai^d one would suppose that ber Royal Highness "would at once have said, " Here the dilficulty ceases — provide a table for him elsewhere." Her Royal Highness took time to consider of it, she refused the proffered accommodation, and Bergami dined with her during the voyage. 'Why did he mention this ? To show that the conduct of her Royal Highness was not plain and direct — to show that she concealed the trulh — and that she would not, even fpr the sake of saving appearances, make the sacrifice required. She now proceeded to Catania, and he begged leave to call their Lordships' attention to what passed there, because it was most important. There was a particular arrangement of afiarlments, which, in consequence of the , indisposition of Bergami, was afterwards altered. Her Royal Highness slept in the room adjoining that of Mad. De Mont and her sister, Marietta Bron, and on the other side of that room slept the Countess of Oldi. Bergarai being ill, he was put into the room previously occupied by the Counless Oldi, and the Countess was placed in the apartraent of her Royal Highness. It would be seen, therefore, that up to this, period De Mont and her sister slept between the apartment occupied by Bergami and that allotted lo her Royal Highness. They vvere in the habit of going lo breakfast about nine o'clock ; the door which communicated with their room was sometimes open, someiimes clo,sed ; but, on one particular morning, happening lo remain beyond theusual time (to the best of her re^ collection, her sister being present,) about the hour often, her Royal High ness, carrying the pillows on which she was accustomed to sleep, came out of the room of Bergarai. She saw De Mont— she eyed her, and passed Into her own room, contrary lo her usual custom, without saying any thing.. He be lieved that no questions vvere put, as to tbat part of the case, by the learned counsel on the other side ; bul their LOrd.ships, In the discharge of that im portant duty which had been cast upon them, thought it "neces.sary that some questions should be asked, to ascertain vvhether a large portion of time had not been passed by her Royal Highness in the bed-roora of Bergami ?. Their Lordships asked, whether De Mont had quitted the room that morning ¦ to which she answered, that she had not. How long had she been av\ake? She answered, two hours. Whelher, during that time, her Royal Highness passed ihrough the room! Her answer vvas, no. Then the infere^ice vvas, that certainly for two hours her Royal Highness had been in the bed» room of the courier When he stated this fact, he was aware it vyould be again said, that it depended on the evidence of De Mont, and therefbre it be came necessary, as^ much of what he had to introduce rested on her credit. TRTAL OF THE QUEEN. 4gl 0 fprtiiJed and .suppoitej as il was by corroborative slateraents, to say a word or two wjtJ) respect lo what had bcon thrown out on the olher side, fbr the j^urpcse-of Impeaching her testimony. Certain letters were brought forward, in which tiie fine feeling, the exlensi\c charily, the exalted generosity, and sJI those distinguished qualities which her Royal Higlinoss was .said to [lossess ina roost eminent dejiiee, were ivarmly desciibed. In noticing thi.s, lie had no Idea pf taking avv.iy lliose virtues from her Royal Highness. He had no doubt, Jovas irapossible even to hope, that either the Houise or the public could, after what they had heard, go away without some prejudice unfavourable to the Queen, Their Lordships, then', had bpt a choice of evils ; and it was for thera tp p'onsider what would be the cppjiequence in criminal cases hereafter, if that evidence vvhich wa^ necessary tp the statement of any case which counsel might have to offer were postpoped to an "indefinite period after that statement had been made.' Himself, as vvell as bis noble and les^rnpd friend, Lord Erskine, vvpfe approaching thp term of their natural Existence. No doubt both acted from a feehng of their duly. He gaye credit to tbat noble and learned Lord for more experience in matters of similar description than he (the Lord Chancellor) could have ; still they rnight diifef-^t^ey' did differ. He agreed with the noble Lor4 that the House had no right to say to a couU' sel, " If you open your case you shall pledge yourself that you will cuU witnesses, or- that you will not call pilnesses." If was upon general principles applicable to sil^ TRIAL 01' THE QUEEN. 433 men, and upon such principles only, that the House could safely and properly apt. But if the House acceded to this request of counsel, what would be the consequence, what the prejudice sustained by the other side? Their Lordships would have before thoin ihe statement of the defendant, nnsuii| iiicd by evidence, or only by partial evidence; and perhaps, by and by, endi i , r wrought forward applying to a case entirely different. And the mude and learned Lord told the House that this was all owing to the want of speciticatum in the bill. It was no such thing : a proposition had not long a;.;i) been iiuide hy the noble and learned Lord to dtday tbe proceeding altogether for a cuiisiderable time, and then to cummencct and complete it without stepping; but such a. course would have been impracticable; the very nature of the case would have. Compelled the counsel for the defendant to call lor delay at the cloie of the evidence in support of the bill. In addition to what be bad said, the noble. Lord would merely state that he had taken the earliest opportunity of arhlress- ing the House with no olher view than lo discharge a painful, but aa a sulule djjty. Consistently with that duty — conslstentl)' with the honour of a jieer, or with the duty of a raan -^he could not consent to the proposition ot hor .Majes ty's counsel. He could not agree to their opening their defence without a ppsitive statement that they raeant to complete it— unless the House took the comraenceraent as an iraplied pledge for the completion ; and he (the Lord Chancellor) should have thought that he acted unworthily if he had permitted, them to give that pledge without announcing that as a pledge he should con sider it. Earl .Grey could not agree that the present difficulty ought not to be ascribed tp the previous proceedings of the House. It appeared to him to arise entirely out of those proceedings — out of the refusal to give in this case to the Queen that certainty of situation, that specification of crime, and that knowledge of ^iinesses, which the law of England allowed to every individual similarly situated. The noble Lord upon the woolsack had made an assertion— which was merely an assertion — that even if those advantages (rights he ougiit rather- to have called thera) had been granted, the counsel for the defence must at last have come to an application for delay. He was at a loss to understand upon what principle that assertion could be grounded. IF the specification of charges, the list of witnesses, and the olher advantages had been given, nothing could have occurred, as it appeared to hira, to entitle her Majesty's counsel lo make such au application ; nothing which could give them any claira to a deviation frora those forras in similar cases coinmonly observed ; but, refused those rights by tbe noble Earl opposite, and by the House at large- attacked by charges spreading. In tirae, over a period of sir years, and in space over three quarters of the world— denied that sppcifjcation of facts, that list of witnesses, which would have been granted to her in the ecclesiastical courts, and which,, if indicted for treason, she might by the law of Edward III. have claimed before that House— denied those advantages, an equivalent at some stage became abr, solutely necessary, in order to enable her Majesiy to enter upon her detent^, with that power which the law of England granted even to the meanest culprtf —the power of doing justice to her innocence, if innocent she was. 1 he equi-. valent was necessary; the equivalent was promised; and the question was now, in what manner it should be given ? Now, looking at the comparative dis advantage of granting the application, and of refusing it ; and looking at the Situations of the parlL who, by such disadvantage, were lobe afj: ^j >!« did ask the House, whether in tbe spirit of English law, «' '" .">« sp "t of piversal justice (Hear, hear), npon any principle of common huraamty 05. 434 TEIAL OF THE QOEEJJ. compassion, they could subject the accused to that.disadvantage,and give every advantage to the accuser? or vvhether they ought not to respect that humane principle of English law which surrounded the accused on every side wilh pro tection, and cast disadvantage, if disadvantage must be the lot of one, upon the side of the accuser? This he would contend for as a general principle ; but, in the particular case before the House, it was an argument irresistible; because, hovv had the disadvantage been created ? By the act of the House itself---by the bill of pains and penalties (Hear, hear)— by a proceeding altogether anomalous, for which no precedent could be cited, and which, he trusted, would never be cited as a precedent. It was that proceeding that had embarrassed the House with difficulties ; every step they took, their embarrass ments were increasing ; the House bad encountered nothing but difficulties iince first they entered that " Perfidious bark, " Bifflt in th' eclipse, and rigg'd with curses dark." — The Earl of Liverpool sa'\d, that which was now required was not a delay previous to the defence, but in the course of the defence, and at any period, too, in which the counsel for the Queen might please to demand it. This was a proposition inconsistent with every principle of justice. A noble and learned Lord (Erskine), for whose authority on subjects of this nature he entertained, as he ought to do, the highest respect, had said that his Majes ty's Solicitor-Generdl could have put off the summing up.~ He would ask how he could have put it off? How could their Lordships have said one word to the counsel for her Majesty until the case was closed on the olher side ? If the cross-examination had been postponed, that vvould have been the proper period for their Lordships' adjournment, in order to afford the opposite party the time necessary for procuring witnesses. But the cross- examination having gone on, the moment the Attorney-General for the Queen said, " I have no further questions to ask," then, he maintained, his Majes ty's Solicitor-General was bound to proceed with his summing up,* and they had no right to press that circumstance against the counsel for the bill. The more, however, ihey considered the proposition altogether, the more uniena- ible it would be found in every point. He knew of no case but a vvhole case. The case for the prosecution was a vvhole case, as il referred lo the prosecu tion ; the case for tbe defence was a whole case, as far as it went to the de fence. There vvas an opening statement, the examination, cross-examina tion, and re-examinalion, of witnesses, and finally the summing up. This formed a whole case ; it v^'as indivisible in its nature, and could not be separated. The course which their Lordships bad agreed to adopt — that of granting a delay before entering on the defence — vvas to a certain extent dangerous; but it was clearly contrary to the principles of justice that the sub-division of a case should be permitted. If they once allowed it, what were the limits to which such a practice should be confided? where were tbe points at vvhich the sub-division should cease ? The raore they looked at the proposition, the more evidently would they perceive that to act on it was wholly irapracticable. They were willing to grant a proper delay before the defence was entered, on. That be contemplated as the only proposition' • yes, ray Lord, the Solicitor-General was as much obliged to proceed with the Summing- ap as Mr. Brougham was to open his case for the defence ; and, therefore, we wish to know why her Majesty's AttorneyUeneral should bo interrupted in the discharge of his duty by V>y premature and uDfiKcedented eiplaqations f TRIAL OF TTIE QUEEN. 43i that could be fairly and prudently adopted : but to agree to this sub-divi sion of the case would be to commit tenfold more injustice than could be effected by any other means. He by no means wished to conceal from their Lordships that there vvas no inconvenience, uo hardship, in the Course that had beeu adopted; but he would contend, as he had done frora the beginning, that there was no inconvenience or hardship attendant on this raode of pro ceeding that would not lui\e been incurred if impeachment had been re sorted to. Beyond this be vvas bound to saj- that the iuconvenience and hardship that would be suffered on the side making the application bore no comparison whatsoever to the inconvenience and injustice that would b« suffered by the other side, if the proposition were agreed to. He contended that they could not divide the defence raore than they could divide the accu sation. They must take the whole together. Her Majesty's counsel was fully entitled to his option, to begin now and to proceed with bis defence altogether. When he said now, he did not mean this day, but after the lapse of a few days, during which he might arrange his evidence, and shape the manner of the defence. That pause bein^ allowed, he might if he pleased, go through wilh the evidence completely. But if, on the other hand, he conceived that an adjournment vvas necessary to the success of his cause, he had a right to demand it before he entered on the defence, the House having previously understood that this was the only alternative. {Hear, hear.) But for the reasons he had given, and from the view he had taken of the subject, it appeared to bim that no argument could be adduced, and that no analogy could be stated, in support of the claim that was now made for an adjournment in the midst of the evidence. (Hear, hear.) The .Marquis of iMii-idown was an.sious to offer a few words, for the purpose of calling their Lordships' attention to the order of their proceedings. As far as he knew, there was no question before the Hoikc ; no application had been made for delay, as he understood, by the counsel lately atthe bar; and no motion had been submitted to their Lordships that this House should • adjourn. He knew too well the propriety of conduct which distinguished the learned Lord on the woolsack lo imagine that he could think himself ju.sti- fied, after the difference of opinion which had been manifested, in stating any thing to counsel at the bar, without express direction from the House ; and be now desired to know (be hoped it was not disorderly in hira to do so) what it was tlie noble Earl opposite wished lo move should be slated lo counsel in the name of the House. The Lord Chancellor, as we understood, observed that a motion was about to be proposed relative to tbe statement to be made to counsel when they were called in. The Marquis of Lansdown wished to know Its purport After a few words from the Earl of Liverpool, Kk Lordship proposed the following resolution, which was read by the LorrfC/M«c£Zfor: — " That the counsel be called In, and be informed that, if they now proceed to state the case on the part of her Majesiy, they must, at the close of that statement, if they mean to produce evidence, be prepared to produce the whole of their proofs in support of the case stated by them ; but that the House will at their request, if they are nol ready lo lake this course, adjourn to such reasonable tirae as the counsel for her Majesty may propose before their case is Slated, that an opportunity may be allowed thera to arrange the de fence, and produce the necessary evidence." The Marquis of Lansdown SMd, that now undersMuding distinctly, fur l!.e 43S TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. first time, the terms of the proposition before tbe House — a proposition not occasioned by any application from counsel at the bar, and no reason having been given to them for proposing that such a communication should be made to counsel in this stage of the business — he felt himself called upon to state; with all humility, (not beinj so much acquainted with the course of proceed ings in the courts belowj nor in matters of higher judicature, as many of their Lordships were,) thatj so far as he was informed on the subject, a more unusual communication than that now proposed to be made to counsel at the bar had never been knownin any court of judicature vvhatsoever. He would go fur ther, and say, that if, in answer to that communication, the learned counsel at the bar stated that he would not agree to either proposition, bul that be' ¦would reserve himself, in performing his duty towards his client, to make such application to their Lordships as he might think fit at the moment, and under the peculiar circumstances of the period which might call for that appli cation — if the learned counsel said thisy he vvould, in his opinion, do Iiothing more than discharge the duty which he owed to his client. And he believed, tbat, of all the learned counsel who were lately at their Lord ships' bar, there was not one who would think it consistent with "his duty to enter into such a regulation as that now proposed for their Lordships' adoption. (Hear, hear.) A more extraordinary proceeding never oc curred in a court of justice; such a proceeding v»as, in fact, never before heard of. A proposition was made to their Lordships for the purpose of opening a treaty, and entering into a compact with counsel at their bar — with individuals selected to perform a most imporlant duty. Surely so extraordinary a proceeding was never before contemplated in a court of judicature. (Hear, hear.) What was proposed to be done f Nothing less than this— that the learned counsel at the bar, who were ready to proceed— ' who stated they were ready to proceed — who had a right to proceed on account of the situation in which the case now stood, should be told in direct terms, " You shall not proceed, unless you will undertake, in no case whatever,- and under no circumstances whatever — Ignorant «f the evidence you may be able to ptoduce, not knowing its bearings or character — still you must undertake to make no application for delay. (Hear, hear.) This was one part of the question. But in what sort of a situation vvas tbe House placed ? What were their Lordships to do ? Why, they vvere to say, " We, on the other hand, in return for the concession which we demand from you, bind ourselves, say what you will, let whatever circurastances arise, let the varying forras of jus tice connected with the case be what they may — vve bind ourselves to listen to your coramunication; but, beyond that, vve shut ourselves up, we close our ears to the applications of justice, and, by this compact between the Judges on the bench and the counsel at the bar, the Case is to be decided." (Hear, hear.) Having said this much with regard to the extraordinary proceeding which their Lordships were called upon to adopt, he would now advert to all the difficulties with which the case seemed io be surrounded. He would say; agreeing entirely in the sentiments of his noble friend (Earl Grey,) tbat navi gating this sea without a chart, it was impossible for tbem to steer clear of danger, let them lake whatsoever Course or direction they might ; but he found this difficulty considerably augmented by the particular moment at which the matter was brought forward : and he would say, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Liverpool,) that, if any such interposition as that now befpre tbe House was thought necessary, with a TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 437 view tothe supposed interests of justice, it was incumbent on the House to have originated it before his Majesty's Solicitor-General had sunmed up the evi dence on the other side. For vvhat was the object of summing up by a counsel i Here, before he answered this question, he vvould observe, that the noble Earl opposite (Liverpool,) and the learned Lord on the woolsack, who had insisted on this particular course of proceeding, aud recommended it by their votes, had all of them, with feelings which it was irapossible that rainds like theirs would not experience^ expressed their earnest wish, hope, and belief, that the evidence adduced at the bur would not be allowed to make an irapression on their Lordships' rainds. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord, in justice and candour, found himself bound to admit, taking a proper view of human infirmity, that the publication of that evidence must produce a cer tain degree of impression. The learned Lord viewed this circumstance as an evil, and expressed the greatest anxiety that the evidence should not be al lowed so to operate; and yet he would ask their Lordships what was the effect of the proceeding which was recoramended ? They had admitied the com ments of the Solicitor-General on the predeterniination of adjourning the mo ment these comments were closed, which was described as the legal, the pro per, and the natural mode of proceeding. But what was the wish of the' learned Solicitor General in making these comments ? His design evidently was lo give a bias to the case, to strengthen that impression which their Lord ships had deprecated, to point out those parts of the case that were strong, to pass over those that were weak, and to give that direction to the minds of those'who beard his slateraents which would lead to a conviction that the bill was fully supported by the evidence. (Hear.) Their Lordships feeling the necessity of adjourning, and wishing to keep clear of any bias or irapres sion, should have selected an earlier period for that purpose. But now an ad journraent vvas proposed when the Solicitor-General had closed his case, whicb must produce a considerable effect during the period of adjournment. Their Lordships had allowed the Solicitor-General, who would have been as able to sum up at a future period as now — who raight have made a statement without any danger of producing an undue bias on their Lordships' rainds — they had perraitled him to make all his comments on the evidence, for the ex press purpose of creating an irapression, if it did nol exist before ; and, having heard all that he had to say, having heard every thing that could aggravate the circurastances of the case, they exclaimed, " This is the proper moraent for adjournment," before any observation whatever was made on the other side in consequence of those coraraents. (Hear, hear,) This was the course which, to bis utter astonlsbraent, accustoraed as he was to the great candour and fine feeling of the noble Earl (Liverpool,) that he counselled them to pursue. This was what he termed the most equal balance of justice— this was the most proper moment, in his idea, for suspending proceedings in this case. (Cheers,) It was an equality of balance coming to thts— '' Hear all the evidence on oath on one siDE-Aeflr ihe comments on that evidence-hear every thing that can be brought together to make against that side of the case; and at the very moment when the feeling intended io be raised is wrought up to the highest pitch, ihen declare ihat to be the best and ihe safest moment, injustice to both parties, for suspending the proceedings," 'They had said, that to suspen.l the proceedings at all would be to do an injustice; but, to alleviate tha in- justice as much as possible, they were told, that a proper and convenient time would be selected, and the present moment was pointed out to them as ttiat proper time, when the whole weight' of evidence and the whole weight of common 63 438 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. militated against one side. (Cheers.) Tbe inconvenience that might have been produced by adopting another line of conduct was nothing, when compared with the gross and palpable injustice of allovying all the evidence lo come out, enforced by the reasonings of the Solicitor-General, calculated as tbey were to create an unfavourable bias on the public mind. What did the noble Earl think of the foundation on vvhich his bill stood, when he feared so much for its ultimate success? It was supported by evidence on oath — it was sustained by the coramenls of the Solicitor-General; and tbat wbich could b^ now alleged against it could amount only to a mere statement. But the noble Earl seemed to think, notwithstanding the manner in vvhich the bill had been supported, tbat if, unhappily, it were attacked by one day's comment on the other side, il would be defeated; and he called out " that the permission to make those comments, even for a day, vvould be so grossly unjust, would be such an abandonment of all the principles of right and' wrong, that it ought not to be conceded." (Cheers.) He seemed to think that there would be an end of the case, and that no man, however sanguine bis expectations might have been, could be sure of its success under ' these circumstances. (Cheers,) The real balance of Inconveniences was on the other side, and not on tbat where the noble Earl seemed to suppose it was. It was undoubtedly a. great evil, a great inconvenience, that a delay of any sort should take place ; but that delay being the inevitable consequence of the course which their Lordships had had the misfortune to pursue, and whicb the accused party had opposed, vvas it not most unfair to allow the case for thei prosecution, the evidence in that case, and the comments on that evidence, to go forth to the public, perhaps for two months, uncontradicted? Was it not fair that a comment, at leasts should go forth from the other side; not, indeed, supported by evidence, but vvhich would point out to their Lord ships, and to the public, in what' respect the testimony for the prosecution was vulnerable ? This was all that was proposed; and, looking to the great advantages i possessed by the other side, he conceived that it ought to be granted. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Liverpool) had spoken of making an impression by means of the .speech of counsel unsupported by evi dence: but was it to be for a moment supposed that the learned counsel at the bar could so far forget the interests of their client, could so far forget the substantial interests of the cause, as to make a number of assertions which could not be supported by evidence, and which, if not supported by evidence, they must know might prove fatal, to their case ? On tbe contrary, if any dif iiculty presented itself to the course proposed by her Majesty's counsel*, it appeared to him to arise from an opposite cause ; it arose from the cpurse in vvhich their Lordships had proceeded, "a course which left counsel unacquainted with time, place, and circumstances, ^ The difficulty thus occasioned,, he begged leave to tell their Lordships, was much increased in the case of innocence (Hear, hear) ; for consciousness of guilt could supply what their Lordships had refused. With all the difficulties which arose from this cause, and with the necessity of counsel, as it were, feeling their way, it appeared to him that there was much greatar danger that counsel would fall short, and make a stateraent raore limited and more restrained than the case might warrant ; because they raust bo aware, that asserting what they did not know could be supported by proof would prove injurious to the case they were advocating, and to the ultiraate interests of-tbeir client. Their Lordships would give hira leave to say, that in a choice of difficulties, and in forming his resolution a,s to the decision he should cone to, he could not exclude frora his mind tliat TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 43^ their Lordships, while they were not to be unmindful of the inlerests of the prosecution, ought to lean, if any leaning at all existed, to'the accused. He could not exclude from his raind that this was not the first time that her Ma jesty was accu-sed wiihout means of defence; that this was the second tirae befoi-o their Lordships that the accused was exposed to charges anil accusa tions without any room for defence. Their Lordships, while they determined on the course of proceeding on the present occasion ought to call to their re collection that the report of their secict committee was allowed to circulate for two months without a'ffording any means of contradiction to the accused. Thfs was a great disadvantage, to vvhich the accused had before been exposed. And now it was contended, that for the second time, evidence should go forth against her for two months, and evidence supported upon oath, without what in all other cases accompanied such sworn and published accusations. He could not conceive how their Lordships could consistently now decide that evidence upon oath, circulated among the people, should be left for months wiihout any explanation, contradiction, or coraraent — aye, and what was more, evidence not met by any like assertion on the other side. On those views he would give his vote against the motion. (Hear, hear, hear,)* After a few observations from tbe Earl of Carnarvon and Lord Redesdale, the House divided on the Lord Chancellor's raotion — Contents, l65 Non-contents, 6o Majority, 105 Counsel were then called in, and the decision of the House was coramuni- cated to tbem. On our re-adraission below the bar — Mr. Brougham was observing, that he would bow, as becarae hira, to the decision of the House; but he begged to be allowed to make another appli cation to their Lordships. He had to claim the indulgence of the House to be allowed, in the present stage of the proceedings, to be heard in comraenting upon the case already raade out on the other side, binding hiraself, in the course of that coraraent, not to offer to their Lordships one single word de scribing, or in any manner opening, or alluding to, the particulars -of any statement of evidence wbich he might hereafter advise her Majesty lo bring forward. Counsel having been ordered to withdraw. The Lurd Chancellor said, that if he rightly understood the application of the learned counsel, it was,- that he might be permitted, to-morrow, to com ment on the evidence in support of the bill, without going any further into a statement of the defence. He considered comments '-n the evidence for the prosecution to be, in the strictest sense, a part of the statement of the defend ant's case; and as such, he was of opinion tbat this application could not be granted consistently with the decision to which their Lordships had come on that point. Justice to the witnesses required that the value of their evidence should be estimated, not by the comments of counsel, but by evidence adduced on the other side. , r l Lord Erskine asked, if they refused the present application for the reason assigned by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, why they had per- * Itisimpcssible to add any thing to the powerful, ^"g^'""'' ''?f„„t'' and showf Tn this noble Lord ; it is a most masterly view of the question b^f""', ?•¦\^°"'tm "sed on the the most convin^ng manner, the cruelty and injusUce of the alteraaUve imposed on the Queen's Counsel. . 440 TRIAX OF THE QUEEN. mitted the King's Solicitor-General to sum up the evidence for the prosecution and to comment upon it? Why bad not their Lordships allowed tbat evidence to go forth without such coraraents? and then, after a reasonable time had been granted, they might have ordered the counsel for the bill to sum up, and her Majesty's counsel would immediately have followed wilh a stateraent of the defence. Reflecting on what had laken place, he could not possibly conceive on vvhat principle of justice their Lordships should prohibit her Majesty's Attorney-General, since he was not yet prepared to bring forward the evidence for the defence, to coraraent on the testiraony on tbe other side, which had been allowed to go abroad wilh the coraraents of the counsel for the crown. It might be saidthat such a course was unusual, but that was no argument against the application of the learned counsel, because the whole proceeding vvas unparalleled, and without precedent. He should, therefore, raove " that counsel be called in, and lold that to-morrow her Majesty's Attorney-General Would be allowed to comment on the evidence adduced insupport of the bill wiihout entering into any statement of the case for the defence." The motion was put by the Lord Chancellor, and the House divided — Contents, 47 i Non-contents, 179 I Majority, 132. Strangers were not re-admitted ; but we vvere told that counsel having been called in, and inforraed of the result of the application, Mr. Brougham begged that he might not be called on till to-morrow at ten o'clock, to raake his elec tion whether he.would proceed immediately to stale the case and call evidence for the defence, or apply for a reasonable delay. This application vvas granted, and tbe House adjourned at four o'clock. TWENTY-FIRST DAY.— Saturday, September 5. After the usual formalities counsel being called in. The Lord Chancellor requested lo know frora Mr. Brougham at what tirae it vvould be most convenient for her Majesty's counsel to go into their defence. Mr. Brougham, — My Lords, her Majesty's counsel, wishing to give the House a full and satisfactory answer to that question, thought it their duty last night to wait upon her Majesty; and, in concurrence with mj' learned friend, Mr. Williaras, who, in consequence of professional duty, has been obliged to leave town for York, we have come to a determination upon the subject, which wC trust will meet your Lordships' convenience. The decision which your Lord ships came to yesterday, namely, nol to allow any comraentary in this stage of the proceeding upon tbe evidence adduced in support of tbe bill, was commu nicated to her Majesty. We then received her Majesty's coraraands to inform your Lordships, that we shall proceed as speedily as possible to answer the case made out, and to tender evidence in defence of her Majesty ; but as this will require a few days' preparation, and as that task will devolve to one of ber Majesty's advisers in a different branch of the profession, probably your Lord ships will grant a short delay for that purpose. Her Majesty's anxiety to pro ceed in her defence continues not only unabated, but is rather increased (as perhaps the House may have expected), by tbe developement of some parts of tbe case against her. Looking to tbat very natural, and, I shall take leave to add, praiseworthy feeling, my learned friends and myself are desirous that the TRtAL OF THE QUEEN. 44I delay should be as short as possible; and I rather exceed than fall short of the limits her Majesty has been pleased to assign to our request when I ask your Icrdships to allow us to about Monday fortnight. ' The Earl of Liverpool apprehended tbat there could bo no difference of opinion as to the proposal made by the learned counsel at the bar. He had been of opinion that the defence, when once begun, should be completed ; but he thought that the time for beginning that defence should be left, without re ference to the convenience of Peers, eilher individually or collectively, to the discretion of her Rlajesty's counsel. Lord Holland wished to kuow if there were any intention of altering the hours of assembling. After a few words from the Earl of Darnley, The Lord Chancellor put the question, " Is it the pleasure of your Lordships, dial when the House meets again, to proceed pn this bill, counsel be called in at 10 o'clock, and that the House adjourn at four o'clock each day ?" Agreed to. The Duke of Montrose, iuiving received a letter from a raeraber of the other House, Mr. William Burrell, stating the impossibility of attending at their Lordships' bar from ill health, requested to know if their Lordships would al low him to be examined by a coramission ? I lo understood it was the inten tion of the other House, when they met, to move that a coinmissiuii be ap pointed for the examination of such witnesses as could not attend. It might be right to mention, that Mr. Burrell said he was not aware of his having any thing very raaterial to state. Application had been made to hira to attend as a witness on behalf of her Majesty, but bis state of health was such, that it was quite impossible for him to obey the summons. The Earl of Liverpool said, the application now made proved the validity of the objection he had recently offered to the House. If this request were granted in one case, he could see no reason for its being refused iu any others. It was possible that one witness might be of very great importance, and ano ther of very little; but, taking it either one vvay or the other, the precedent, he conceived, would be extremely dangerous. He, therefore, put it to their Lordships, whether it would not be better to abstain from any interference whatsoever. Lord Erskine said a few words, which were inaudible. The Earl of Rosslyn considered it important to the interests of the Queen that the indulgence prayed for should be granted. The Lord Chancellor, — Mr. Attorney-General, I ara informed Ihat two wit nesses on the part of her Majesty, Lord F. Montague and Mr. Wm. Burrell, , find it irapossible to corae to the bar of this House to be examined In conse quence of ill-health. Do you consent to their exaraination being taken out this House in any forra the House raay think proper to adopt? The Atlorney-General said, he hardly knew how to answer this question. . He had been directed by their Lordships to bring his evidence forward perso nally at the bar, and he had done so. If, however, their Lordships were of opinion that this application should be granted, he would be bound to give bis consent. It was a matter, he thought, for their Lordships' determination, whether or not they would sufier witnesses which were abroad to be examined by commission. The Lord Chancellor. — It appears to me that this Is all the answer which the Attorney-General can possibly give! 442 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. Lird Holland would not oppose the examination, but he wished to know if there existed any, and what, analogy on the subject. The Earl of Liverpool — I move that this House do adjourn. The Lord Chancellor. — Before the question of adjournment is put, I propose the following persons be ordered to attend this House, on the farther proceed-. ings on this bill : — John Oldie, Julius Caesar Gavazzi, Joseph Visetti, William Hughes, John Johnstone, John Branbach.— Ordered. The Lord Chancellor. — Thequeslion I have now to put. is — " Is it your' Lord ships' pleasure that this House adjourn to Tuesday, the 3d day of October next?" which was agreed to, and their Lordships adjourned accordingly. El^D OF THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. 443 ADDENDA. Since the preceding evidence was printed, we have compared it wilh the official minutes of the Lords, bul with the exception of the spelling of names, and some other verbal disagreements, there does not appear any other difference of importance. At page 156 is noticed, from the Tiraes correspondent, an erroneous trans lation bf the King's interpreter; but the answer in the next appears to have been correct. In the official copy it is, " Now I understand it : once I re member her Royal Highness sitting and stooping on the bed of Pergitrai, and to have desired Gaetano Paturzo to go away, for it was not decent lor him. who was a young raan, to.be present; because, when I saw her Royal High ness stooping on the bed in that way, I sent away Gaetano Paturzo, who was a young man, not to see that thing which I thought indecent." — Minutes of Evidence, p. 1835. Bergami is uniformly written Pergami in the official copy. Sorae difference of opinion prevails as to the correct interpretation of " Non mirieordo." The expression, which occurs frequently in pages 89 and 101, is uniformly rendered, in the corresponding pages of the Minutes, " I do not reraember. Instead of Karston, at page 1 89, read Garston. 444 TRIAL OF THE QUEEN. LIST OF THE WITNESSES. The number of witnesses examined for the prosecution, exclusive of the translators and others, raerely exarained to verify docuraents, is twenty-five. The following Is an alphabetical list of their names and occupations, with the pages of reference to their exarainaiion-in-chief. PAOB BIANCHI, ANTONIO, labourer • 343 BIANCHI, GIUSEPPE, door-keeper at the Grand Bretagne Inn 2l6 BRUZO, DOMINICO, m,ason ai the Villa d'Este 341 BRIGGS, THOMAS, Captain of the Leviathan 1 72 CARATTI, CARLO, confectioner t- 34,6 DEL ORTO, GIUSEPPE, baker at Villa d'Este • • 357 DE MONT, LOUISA, femme de chambre ^- 239 EGALI, GIUSEPPE, waiter at a tavern • 355 FINETTIS, ALESSANDRO, an ornamental painter ¦¦•• 339 GASSINO, FRANCISCO, mason • 347 GOURGIARDI, GIUSEPPE, boatman on Lake Como - 358 GALblNI, LUIGI, mason at the Villa d'Este 335 GA RGIULO, VINCENZO, captain nf, the polacre 14 J KRESS, BARBARA, chambermaid at Carlsruhe :,.,.. l84 LUCCINI, GIOVANNI, white-washer - 345 MAJOCHI, THEODORE, lacquey and courier 67, 159, 405 MIARDI, lERONYMUS, garrfener 227 OGGIONE, PAOLO, under-cook to the Princess 232 PATURZO, GAETANO, mate of the polacre • 127 PECHELL, GEORGE, captain of the Clorinde 170 PUCHI, PIETRO, agent of an inn at Trieste . • • • • 176. RASTELLI, GIUSEPPE, groom of ihe stables • 348 RAGAZZONI, PAOLO, mason at Villa d'Este 220 ROLLO, FRANCISCO DI, cook of the Princess 163 ;5ACCHI, GIUSEPPE, courier to tlie Princess - • '¦ • • 36I Printed and Published by JpHN Eaibbdbn, Broadway, Ludgate-Hiil. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 03747 5226 -, ¦ I '¦,^^¦ ^^